The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 04/21/2009 Revised 4/20/09 — Executive Session on III Pending Litigation and a Study Session Added - City of Tigard TIGAR Tigard Workshop Meet — Agenda TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE /TIME: April 21, 2009 — 6:00 p.m. - Workshop Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard — Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 Ott PUBLIC NOTICE: Times noted are estimated. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503 - 639 -4171, ext 2410 (voice) or 503 - 684 -2772 (1DD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting by calling: 503 - 639 -4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503- 684 -2772 (1'DD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Workshop meetings are cablecast on Tualatin Valley Community TV as follows: Replay Schedule for Tigard City Council Workshop Meetings - Channel 30 • Every Sunday at 11 a.m. • Every Monday at 6 a.m. • Every Tuesday* at 2 pm (Workshop meetings are not aired live. Tuesday broadcasts are a replay of the most recent workshop meeting.) • Every Thursday at 12 p.m. • Every Friday at 3 a.m. SEE ATTACHED AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AGENDA — APRIL 21, 2009 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 1 503 - 639 -4171 1 www.tigard - or.gov 1 Page 1 of3 14 41 City of Tigard Tigard Workshop Meeting — Agenda TiGARD- TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE /TIME: April 21, 2009 — 6:00 p.m. - Workshop Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard — Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 6:00 p.m • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (d) to discuss labor negotiations and (h) for consultation with legal counsel concerning legal rights and duties regarding current litigation or litigation likely to be filed. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. STUDY SESSION ➢ Discuss Attendance and Location for University of Oregon - Portland - Land Use /Design Vision Document Review for Tigard's Portion of the Hwy 99W Corridor — Administration Department 6:30 p.m. 1. WORKSHOP MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non - Agenda Items 2. JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION • Staff Report: Community Development Department • 3. DISCUSS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS REGARDING TREE REMOVAL (DCA2009- 00001) • Staff Report: Community Development Department 4. DISCUSS DRAFT WASHINGTON COUNTY URBANIZATION FORUM RESOLUTION • Staff Report: Community Development Department TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AGENDA — APRIL 21, 2009 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 1 503 - 639 -4171 1 www.tigard - or.gov 1 Page 2 of3 5. BRIEFING ON DESIGNATION OF HWY 99W AS A REGIONAL MOBILITY CORRIDOR • Staff Report: Community Development Department City Council meeting will recess. The training session for Item No. 6 will take place in the Red Rock Creek Conference Room, adjacent to the Town Hall Meeting Room. 6. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT TRAINING FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS • Staff Facilitation: Public Works Department 7. ADJOURNMENT I:\ ADM \CATHY\CCA\2009 \090421 P REV2.doc TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 21, 2009 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 1 503 - 639 -4171 1 www.tigard- or.gov 1 Page 3 of3 Agenda Item # Meeting Date April 21, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Annual Joint City Council /Planning Commission Meeting: Council Goals 1 and 2 Prepared By: Dick Bewersdorff Dept Head Approval: t : City Mgr Approval: CY ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL The City Council endeavors to meet with its Boards and Commissions on an annual basis to discuss items of common interest. STAFF RECOMMENDATION N/A KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The Planning Commission was asked what items they wished to discuss with the City Council. The commissioners expressed interest in discussing communications between the two groups. No other specific items were chosen. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None CITY COUNCIL GOALS Goal No. 1: Implement Comprehensive Plan No. 2: Implement Downtown Urban Renewal ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: City Council Goals Attachment 2: Planning Commission Goals FISCAL NOTES N/A I: \LRPLN \Council Materials \ 2009 \ 4-21-09 AIS Annual Joint CC - PC Meeting.docx City of Tigard > City Hall > City Council > City Council Goals rage 1 ()IL ATTACHMENT 1 City of Tigard, Oregon -34", 14: 13125 SW Hall Blvd, Tigard, OR 9722.1 � y t it l e _,. �c -a �° � 503 - 639.4171 ' 0 - "A Pl to Call Home- r ` � .< I' I G A ii l i Tree City L i SA Search City Hall Business Community Police Library Help 24 Feb 2009 a — Related Items City Council Goals :. City Council Meetings Home > City Hall > City Council > City Council Goals :. Mayor's Corner Meet the Council 2009 Tigard City Council Goals Quick Links Home On January 6, 2009 the City Council met to set its goals for the coming year. These Affordable Housing goals represent those items that the Council feels deserve special attention in the months ahead. The City will accomplish much more than what is listed here, but we Bid Advertisements identify these to be of particular importance to our residents. :. Budget 08/09 :. City Charter The goals listed below were adopted at the January 13, 2009 Council Business City Council Meetings_ meeting. If you have any questions regarding City Council, please contact City Construction in Tigard Recorder Cathy Wheatley. Development Code Emergency 1. Implement Comprehensive Plan Management Events & Meetings a. Update Tigard zoning maps based on Comprehensive Plan Update :• Ffp_u S b. Update Tree Code to meet Comprehensive Plan :. Job Opportunities C. Continue to lobby for light rail in 99W Corridor :. New to Tigard? d. Develop a 50 -year aspirational goal in support of Urban /Rural Reserves :. Parks in Tigard Program :. Passports Public Records 2. Implement Downtown Urban Renewal Room Reservations :. Tigard Municipal Code a. Move forward with Burnham Street Project :. volunteer b. Complete land use regulations and design standards for the downtown Opportunities :. Water Division 3. Prepare for 2010 Bond Measure for Parks, Open Spaces and Trails :.z nin a. Complete Parks Master Plan Online Services b. Pursue Fanno Park and downtown plaza property acquisition Library Catalog -WCCLS Online Park 4. Continue to support the legislature in addressing the financial needs of Reservations state and local governments in Oregon :. Tigard Maps :. Utility P yments - -- — — 5-Year Goals • Implement Comprehensive Plan • Develop a Tong -term financial strategy • Obtain 99W designation as the next Light Rail Corridor • Prepare 2010 Bond Measure for Parks, Open Spaces and Trails • Begin 99W access management implementation • Support WCCLS and Public Safety levy renewals in 2010 • Begin City Facility Needs Plan implementation Long Term Goals • Pursue opportunities to reduce traffic congestion in Tigard • Seek to improve Hwy 99 Corridor (land use, alternative routes, traffic, etc.) http:// www.tigard- or.gov /city_hall/city _council /city_council_goals.asp 2/24/2009 ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Special Meeting Minutes February 19, 2008 1. CALL TO ORDER President Inman called the meeting to order at 6:45 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Permit Center, Conference Room #1, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Inman; Commissioners Anderson, Doherty, Fishel, Hasman, Muldoon, and Vermilyea Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Caffall and Walsh Staff Present: Ron Bunch, Assistant Community Development Director (took minutes) 3. IDENTIFY PLANNING COMMISSION'S 2008 GOALS President Jodie Inman noted the purpose of the meeting was for the Planning Commission to identify its 2008 goals to discuss at its annual meeting with the City Council. Ron Bunch, Assistant CD Director, handed out a compilation of ideas for goals staff received by e -mail from the Commissioners during the past week. Chair Inman said that during the next 30 - 40 minutes, before the City Council meeting, the Planning Commission should reach agreement on four or five major topics it wished to address during calendar year 2008. Following discussion, the Planning Commission identified the following topics to discuss with the City Council at its annual meeting. Comprehensive Plan Implementation: The Planning Commission wishes to begin a process to implement the Comprehensive Plan. The commission noted that it is important to keep the momentum of the planning effort that will result in an adoption of a completely updated Comprehensive Plan. Revisit the Tigard Triangle and Washington Square Plans: The Commission was in agreement that the City should revisit plans that have been developed in the past to determine if the plans are still relevant, and update them if necessary. Commissioners noted that development is occurring in the Tigard Triangle and that the City needs to take a more proactive role to ensure this type of development is what is best for the City. Downtown Planning and Redevelopment: The Commission noted it is important to complete the land use program, including design standards, for the Tigard downtown. PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES — February 19, 2008 — Page 1 I:11.RPLMCOreenlPCrPC Minutes 20080po 219.08 epe4el meeting Oren minutes doe i i Highway 99 W and Transportation Planning: Transportation planning and congestion relief is important overall to the City. The Planning Commission has a role by holding public hearings on amendments to the Transportation System Plan and the Comprehensive Plan Transportation chapter. Undertake Updates to the Community Development Code: This effort should include revised Tree Protection Standards; revisions to the Planned Development Ordinance; and standards to govern transfer of density when development must occur on sites with important natural resources /natural hazards, etc. 6. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. 7. ADJOURNMENT President Inman adjourned the meeting at 7:20 pm. j \s_. cx2 Ron Bunch, Asst. Community Development Director \ yy A'1'1'F ST: President Jodie Inman • PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES — February 19, 2008 — Page 2 I: LLRPLNIDoreeMPCTO Min,lea 2998Hpo2.19.0e special meeting dro11 minutes doo Agenda Item # Meeting Date April 21, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Discuss Proposed Development Code Amendments Regarding Tree Removal DCA2009- 00001, Council Goal # 1b Prepared By John Floyd Dept Head Approval: KB City Mgr Approval: '( ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Review and discuss with staff, proposed Development Code Amendments recommended by the Planning Commission at their March 16, 2009 public hearing (DCA2009- 00001). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Council is requested to become familiar with the Commission's recommendation to adopt Development Code Amendments pertaining to tree removal and identify any additional material or information to assist in making its decision at a public hearing scheduled for May 12, 2009. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Historically, applicants submitting for land use approval have been required to identify all trees on site, specify which will be removed, and propose protection methods for those to be retained. Any or all trees could be removed so long as they were appropriately mitigated. This practice does not prioritize protection over removal wherever possible, as required in Section 18.790.030 of the Tigard Community Development Code. This practice is also in conflict with the purpose statement of the Tree Removal Ordinance which recognizes the value of trees and calls for their preservation. That said, the code is not clear as to how an applicant can demonstrate compliance with the City's stated preference. This lack of clarity generated a Director's Interpretation in 2008 by the previous Community Development Director, which was intended to guide the administration of Chapter 18.790 during development application review. Shortly after issuance, the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland (HBA) appealed this interpretation to the City Council. The appeal was successful and the Council overturned the interpretation on the grounds that it was more appropriately addressed through a code update. Coinciding with their ruling, Council directed staff to address this issue through updates to the development code. In response to Council direction, staff has prepared a series of text amendments that clarify and expand the submittal requirements to better enable an applicant to clearly and objectively comply with this community preference. A draft of the amendments was presented to the Tigard Tree Board for review and comment on December 4, 2008. Recommended changes and public comments received at that meeting were incorporated by staff and presented to the Planning Commission at a workshop on February 23, 2009. Following the February 1 workshop, additional refinements to the proposed text amendments were made in response to correspondence submitted by the public, advice from the City attorney, and by the Planning Commission on March 16, 2009. Meeting minutes from the Planning Commission public hearing can be found in Attachment 2. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A CITY COUNCIL GOALS Goal 1: Implement Comprehensive Plan b. Update Tree Code to meet Comprehensive Plan In support of Council Goal 1b, the proposed Development Code Amendments would implement the following policies of the Comprehensive Plan: Policy 2.1.14: Applicants shall bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that land use applications are consistent with applicable criteria and requirements of the Development Code, the Comprehensive Plan and, when necessary, those of the state and other agencies. Policy 2.2.1: The City shall maintain and periodically update policies, regulations and standards to inventory, manage, preserve, miti ate the loss of, and enhance the community's tree and vegetation resources to promote their environmental, aesthetic and economic benefits. Policy 2.3.1: The City shall develop and implement standards and procedures designed to minimize the reduction of existing tree cover, with priority going to native trees and non - native varietals that are long lived and /or provide a broad canopy spread. Policy 2.3.6: The City shall, in order to preserve existing trees and ensure new trees will thrive, allow and encourage flexibility in site design through all aspects of development review. Policy 6.1.6: The City shall encourage the maintenance and improvement of open spaces, natural resources, and the City's tree canopy to sustain positive contributions to air quality. Policy 6.2.3: The City shall encourage the use of low-impact development practices that reduce stormwater impacts from new and existing development. Policy 6.2.4: The City shall protect, restore, and enhance, to the extent practical, the natural functions of stream corridors, trees, and water resources for their positive contributions to water quality. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Proposed Text Amendments Attachment 2: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes — March 16, 2009 Attachment 3: Staff Report Presented to the Planning Commission on March 16, 2009 FISCAL NOTES N/A 2 ATTACHMENT 1 Recommended Amendments to Tigard Development Code 18.790 (Tree Removal) As Recommended by the Tigard Planning Commission to Tigard City Council on March 16, 2009 Sections: 18.790.010 Purpose 18.790.020 Definitions 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement 18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention 18.790.050 Tree Removal on Sensitive Lands 18.790.060 Violations and Replacement Standards 18.790.010 Purpose A. Value of trees. After years of both natural growth and planting by residents, the City now benefits from a large number of trees. These trees of varied types add to the aesthetic beauty of the community, help clean the air, help control erosion, maintain water quality and provide noise barriers. B. Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are to: 1. Encourage the preservation, planting and replacement of trees in the City; 2. Regulate the removal of trees on sen3itivc lands in the City to eliminate unnecessary removal of trees; 3. Provide for a tree plan for developing properties; 4. Protect 3cnsitivc lands from erosion; 5. Protect water quality; 6. Provide incentives for tree retention and protection; and 7. Regulate commercial forestry to control the removal of trees in an urban environment. C. Recognize need for exceptions. The City recognizes that, notwithstanding these purposes, at the time of development it may be necessary to remove certain trees in order to accommodate structures, streets, utilities, and other needed or required improvements within the development. 18.790.020 Definitions A. Definitions. The following definitions apply to regulations governing the preservation and removal of trees contained in this chapter exclusively: 1. "Canopy cover" means the area above ground which is covered by the trunk and branches of the tree; 2. "Commercial forestry" means the removal of ten or more trees per acre per calendar year for sale. Tree removal undertaken by means of an approved tree removal plan under Section 18.790.030 is not considered commercial forestry under this definition; 3. "Hazardous tree" means a tree which by reason of disease, infestation, age, or other condition presents a known and immediate hazard to persons or to public or private property; Tigard Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council of March 16, 2009 1 DCA2009 -00001 March 17, 2009 4. "Practicable" means reasonably capable of being done or accomplished with the available means or resources; 5. "Pruning" means the cutting or trimming of a tree in a manner which is consistent with recognized tree maintenance practices; 6. "Removal" means the cutting or removing of 50 percent (50 %) or more of a crown, trunk or root system of a tree, or any action which results in the loss of aesthetic or physiological viability or causes the tree to fall or be in immediate danger of falling. "Removal" shall not include pruning; 7. "Tree" means a standing woody plant, or group of such, having a trunk which is six inchc3 or morc in caliper size when mca3urcd four fcct from ground lcvcl any standing woody plant having a trunk which is six inches or more in caliper size when measured 54 inches (4 1 /2 feet) above mean ground level at the base of the trunk. If a tree splits into multiple trunks above ground, but below 54 inches, the trunk is measured at its most narrow point beneath the split, and is considered one tree. If the tree splits into multiple trunks below ground, each trunk shall be considered one tree; 8. "Sensitive lands" means those lands described at Chapter 18.775 of the title. B. General rule. Except where the context clearly indicates otherwise, words in the present tense shall include the future and words in the singular shall include the plural. 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement A. Tree Plan Required: A tree plan for the planting, removal, and protection of trees prepared and signed by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel, or combination thereof of lots or parccl3 for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever passible practicable. B. Plan Requirements. In order to determine that the Citv's preference for tree protection has been incorporated into the proiect design. tThe tree plan shall include the following: 1. Identification of the location, size , condition and species of all existing trees, including trees 2. Identification of a program to save retain existing trees or to mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper as measured to the nearest tenth of an inch. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060D, in accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: a. Retention of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program in accordance with Section 18.790.060D of no net loss of trees; b. Retention of from 25% to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two- thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; c. Retention of from 50% to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; d. Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation. 3. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed and the reason for their removal; Tigard Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council of March 16, 2009 2 DCA2009 -00001 March 17, 2009 4 A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction including those within 25 feet of the affected lot or parcel (as estimated by the project arborist if permission to enter is not granted by adjacent property owner); 5. A narrative and site plan demonstrating how the following design and construction techniques will be utilized to the extent practicable. The format of the narrative must address each technique with a "yes" or "no" answer, followed by a written explanation as to how the plans have included said techniques, or why said techniques are not practicable. The accompanying site plan shall include the location of all existing trees in relation to the the location of proposed grading, lot lines, and improvements. a. Does the project protect and retain existing non - hazardous trees that are not likely to become a hazard during or soon after development given their existing condition, ability to withstand unavoidable development related impacts, proximity to proposed land uses and structures, and susceptibility to windthrow? b. Do grading plans avoid soil compaction within the driplines of existing trees to be preserved, the removal of existing soil within driplines, or the placement of new soil within the driplines of existing trees to be preserved? c. Are infrastructure improvements such as stormwater facilities, utilities, sidewalks, and other improvements located outside of the driplines of existing trees? d. Are lot layouts, road and driveway configurations, building locations, and building footprints located outside of the driplines of existing trees? e. Are parking lot improvements located outside of the driplines of existing trees? If no, can parking spaces be reduced to a number consistent with minimum parking stall requirements? f. Does the site plan locate required open space and landscaping in areas that contain existing trees? g. Does the project utilize lot size averaging and /or the reduction of lot width and depth to preserve trees, as allowed per 18.790.040A(2) and (3); h. If the project cannot avoid disturbance within the driplines of existing trees, does the protection program identify compatible construction techniques that will be used to prevent or reduce harm to existing trees (i.e. tunneling for utilities. no — dig pavement installation. use of retaining walls to limit disturbance) to a level that the health and longevity of the trees will not be significantly impacted? 6. A mitigation plan signed by the project arborist that includes the location, species, spacing. and planting specifications for the replacement trees and /or the amount of caliper inches that will be compensated through fees in lieu of planting. C. Subsea Prior tree removal. Trees removed within the period of one year prior to a development application listed above will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.790.060D. Tigard Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council of March 16, 2009 DCA2009 -00001 March 17, 2009 D. Peer Review. In questions of adequacy, the Planning Director or approving authority may at their discretion, subject a tree plan to peer review by a third -party certified arborist under contract to the City. The findings and recommendations of the third -party certified arborist shall be incorporated into the tree plan by revision or condition of approval. E. Approval Criteria. The approval authority may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a tree plan based on the following approval criteria: 1. The tree plan contains all content requirements set forth in sections 18.790.030(A) through (C), including the signature of a certified arborist on all documents, attachments, and amendments; and 2. The tree plan demonstrates that the applicant has affirmatively attempted to protect, as opposed to remove, trees on the project site; and 3. In cases where the Tree Plan has been peer reviewed, the recommendations of the third -party arborist have been incorporated into the tree plan through revisions by a certified arborist, or condition(s) of approval; and 4. Tree removal on sensitive lands complies with requirements set forth in 18.790.050. F. Modifications to approved Tree Plans. Approved tree plans may be modified in the following manner. 1. Major Modification(s) to Approved Tree Protection Plans A. Determination request. An applicant may request approval of a modification to an approved tree protection plan or existing development by: 1. Providing the Director with three copies of the proposed modified tree protection plan; and 2. A narrative which indicates the rationale for the proposed modification addressing the changes listed in subsection B below. B. Evaluation criteria. The Director shall determine that a major modification(s) will result if one or more of the following changes are proposed. There will be: 1. The total number of trees being removed increases by 10% or more, as defined by the whole of the original project; or 2. The total number of caliper inches being removed increases by 10% or more; C. When the determination is made. Upon determining that the proposed modification to the tree protection plan is a major modification, the applicant shall submit a new development application in accordance with the original project approval. 2. Minor Modification(s) to Approved Tree Protection Plans or Existing Development A. Minor modification defined. Any modification which is not within the description of a major modification as provided in Section 18.790.030.F.1 shall be considered a minor modification. B. Process. An applicant may request approval of a minor modification as follows: Tigard Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council of March 16, 2009 4 DCA2009 -00001 March 17, 2009 1. Providing the Director with three copies of the proposed modified tree protection plan; and 2. A narrative which indicates the rationale for the proposed modification. C. Approval criteria. A minor modification shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied following the Community Development Director's review based on finding that: 1. The proposed development is in compliance with all applicable requirements of this title; and 2. The modification is not a major modification. 18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention A. Incentives. To assist in the preservation and retention of existing trees, the Director may apply one or more of the following incentives as part of development review approval and the provisions of a tree plan according to Section 18.790.030: 1. Density bonus. For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a 1% bonus may be applied to density computations of Chapter 18.715. No more than a 20% bonus may be granted for any one development. The percentage density bonus shall be applied to the number of dwelling units allowed in the underlying zone. This bonus is not applicable to trees preserved in areas of floodplain, slopes greater than 25 %, drainageways, or wetlands that would otherwise be precluded from development; 2. Lot size averaging. To retain existing trees over 12 inches in caliper in the development plan for any land division under Chapter 18.400, lot size may be averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot size allowed by the underlying zone as long as the average lot area for all lots and private open space is not less than that allowed by the underlying zone. No lot area shall be less than 80% of the minimum lot size allowed in the zone; 3. Lot width and depth. To retain existing trees over 12 inches in caliper in the development plan for any land division under Chapter 18.400, lot width and lot depth may be reduced up to 20% of that required by the underlying zone; 4. Commercial /industrial /civic use parking. For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan for commercial, industrial or civic uses listed in Section 18.765.080, Minimum and Maximum Off -Street Parking Requirements, a 1% reduction in the amount of required parking may be granted. No more than a 20% reduction in the required amount of parking may be granted for any one development; 5. Commercial /industrial /civic use landscaping. For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a 1% reduction in the required amount of landscaping may be granted. No more than 20% of the required amount of landscaping may be reduced for any one development. B. Subsequent removal of a tree. Any tree preserved or retained in accordance with this section may thereafter be removed only for the reasons set out in a tree plan, in accordance with Section 18.790.030, or as a condition of approval for a conditional use, and shall not be subject to removal under any other section of this chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of approval of any development permit affected by this section to the effect that such tree may be removed only if the Tigard Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council of March 16, 2009 5 DCA2009 -00001 March 17, 2009 tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. The form of this deed restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director. C. Site development modifications granted as incentives. A modification to development requirements granted under this section shall not conflict with any other restriction on the use of the property, including but not limited to easements and conditions of development approval. D. Design modifications of public improvements. The City Engineer may adjust design specifications of public improvements to accommodate tree retention where possible and where it would not interfere with safety or increase maintenance costs. 18.790.050 Tree Removal on Sensitive Land Areas A. Removal permit required. Tree removal permits shall be required only for the removal of any tree which is located on or in a sensitive land area as defined by Chapter 18.775. The permit for removal of a tree shall be processed as a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using the following approval criteria: 1. Removal of the tree must not have a measurable negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters or water quality as evidenced by an erosion control plan which precludes: a. Deposits of mud, dirt, sediment or similar material exceeding 1/2 cubic foot in volume on public or private streets, adjacent property, or into the storm and surface water system, either by direct deposit, dropping, discharge or as a result of the action of erosion; b. Evidence of concentrated flows of water over bare soils; turbid or sediment -laden flows; or evidence of on -site erosion such as rivulets on bare soil slopes where the flow of water is not filtered or captured on site using the techniques of Chapter 5 of the Washington County Unified Sewerage Agency Environmental Protection and Erosion Control rules. 2. Within stream or wetland corridors, as defined as 50 feet from the boundary of the stream or wetland, tree removal must maintain no less than a 75% canopy cover or no less than the existing canopy cover if the existing canopy cover is less than 75 %. B. Effective date of permit. A tree removal permit shall be effective for one and one -half years from the date of approval. C. Extension. Upon written request by the applicant prior to the expiration of the existing permit, a tree removal permit shall be extended for a period of up to one year if the Director finds that the applicant is in compliance with all prior conditions of permit approval and that no material facts stated in the original application have changed. D. Removal permit not required. A tree removal permit shall not be required for the removal of a tree which: 1. Obstructs visual clearance as defined in Chapter 18.795 of the title; 2. Is a hazardous tree; 3. Is a nuisance affecting public safety as defined in Chapter 7.40 of the Municipal Code; 4. Is used for Christmas tree production, or land registered with the Washington County Assessor's office as tax- deferred tree farm or small woodlands, but does not stand on sensitive lands. Tigard Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council of March 16, 2009 6 DCA2009 -00001 March 17, 2009 E. Prohibition of commercial forestry. Commercial forestry as defined by Section 18.790.020 A.2., excluding D.4. above, is not permitted. 18.790.060 Violations and Replacement Standards A. Violations. The following constitute a violation of this chapter: 1. Removal of a tree: a. Without a valid tree removal permit; or b. In noncompliance with any condition of approval of a tree removal permit; or c. In noncompliance with any condition of any City permit or development approval; or d. In noncompliance with any other section of this title. 2. Breach of a condition of any City permit or development approval, which results in damage to a tree or its root system. B. Remedies. If the Director has reason to believe that a violation of this chapter has occurred, then he or she may do any or all of the following: 1. Require the owner of the land on which the tree was located to submit sufficient documentation, which may include a written statement from a qualified arborist or forester, showing that removal of the tree was permitted by this chapter; 2. Pursuant to Section 18.390.050., initiate a hearing on revocation of the tree removal permit and /or any other permit or approval for which this chapter was an approval standard; 3. Issue a stop order pursuant to Section 18.230 of this title; 4. Issue a citation pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Municipal Code; 5. Take any other action allowed by law. C. Fines. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, any party found to be in violation of this chapter pursuant to Section 1.16 of the Municipal Code shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 and shall be required to remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 1. Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section D below; and 2. Payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of any unlawfully removed or damaged tree, as determined using the most current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal. D. Guidelines for replacement. Replacement of a tree shall take place according to the following guidelines: 1. A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species taking into consideration site characteristics; 2. If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damaged is not reasonably available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value; 3. If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable, the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the Tigard Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council of March 16, 2009 7 DCA2009 -00001 March 17, 2009 estimated caliper size of the tree removed or damaged by the caliper size of the largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the City, either public property or, with the consent of the owner, private property; 4. The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. E. In lieu -of payment. In lieu of tree replacement under Section D above, a party may, with the consent of the Director, elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement. F. Exclusivity. The remedies set out in this section shall not be exclusive. Tigard Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council of March 16, 2009 8 DCA2009 -00001 March 17, 2009 ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes March 16, 2009 1. CALL TO ORDER President Inman called the .meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at :13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Inman; Commissioners Anderson, Doherty, Fishel, Hasrnan, Muldoon, Vermilye.a, and Alternate Commissioner Gaschke Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Caffall, and Walsh Staff Present: Rori Bunch, Community Development Director; Dick I3ewersclorff, Planning Manager; Todd Prager, City Arborist; John Floyd, Associate Planner; Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner; Doreen Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary 3. COMMUNICATIONS — None. 4. CONSIDER MEETING MINUTES 2 -23 -09 Meeting Minutes: There was a motion by Commissioner Muldoon, seconded by Commissioner Hasman to approve the 2 -23 -09 Planning Commission meeting minutes as submitted: The motion to approve the minutes as submitted passed unanimously on a recorded vote, the Commissioners voted as follows: AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Cornmissioner Doherty, Commissioner Hasman, Commissioner Inman, Commissioner Vermilyea, and Commissioner Muldoon (5) NAYS: None (0) ABSTAINERS: Commissioner Fishel (1) ABSENT: Commissioner Caffall, and Commissioner Walsh (2) 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2008- 00013 /ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2008- 00007/ . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — March 16, 2009 — Page 1 of 9 S LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2008 - 00016 /MINOR MODIFICATION (MMD) 2008 -00026 - JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER & DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN & ZONING MAP AMENDMENT - PUBLIC HEARING OPENED President Inman read from the Quasi- Judicial Hearing Guide. `.L here were no abstentions or conflicts of interest from the Commissioners. No ex -parte contacts were reported. No one challenged the jurisdiction of the Commission. Commissioner Muldoon reported.a site visit. Gary Pagenstecher presented the staff report on behalf of the City. [Staff reports are available for review at the City one week prior to public hearings.] Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend APPROVAL to City Council of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Also recommended for APPROVAL are the Lot Line Adjustment and Minor Modification, subject to proposed conditions of approval. QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONERS There was a question about condition number 2 which states the applicant shall apply for a variance to the buffer standards, o.r submit a revised landscape plan that shows landscaping consistent with the standards for buffering and screening, subject to review and approval by the City Arborist and the Project Arborist. Pagenstecher referred the question to the applicant. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Michelle Symant, a planner for WRG Design, spoke on behalf of the applicant. She addressed the question about condition number two. She said they had spoken with the project arborist regarding the question and he'd recommended two particular types of trees that will work within the space constraints given. She said they would submit the revised landscape plan to the City Arborist for his review. She anticipates it will work out fine and they probably won't require seeking the variance but they'd like to leave that in should the City Arborist decide those trees won't work. It would leave the option to apply for a variance in the future. She noted the area is essentially a 3000 sq ft strip that requires this Comprehensive Plan zone change /lot land adjustment /Minor Modification — a whole series of things for the replacement of 10 parking spaces. She noted some of the conditions applied to requirements to save the Sequoia trees with placement of the parking spaces. She said that will happen. QUESTIONS OF APPLICANT — None PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — March 16, 2009 — Page 2 of 9 President Inman noted that no one had signed up either as a proponent or an opponent to the application. She asked if anyone present in the audience would like to speak either in favor or in opposition. There was no one present who wished to do either. PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED DELIBERATIONS /MOTION • After a short period of deliberation, there was a motion by Commissioner Vertnilyea, seconded by Commmissioner Fishel, as follows: "I move the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of: approval to the Cite Council of application CPA2008- 00013 /ZON2008 -000 as set forth in the staff report, as well as Lot Line Adjustment 2008 - 00016, subject to the conditions of approval set forth in the staff report; and Minor Modification 2008 - 00026; also subject to the conditions of approval set forth in the staff report." The motion passed unanimously on a recorded vote, the Council voted as follows: AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Fishel, Commissioner Hasman, Commissioner Inman, Commissioner Muldoon and Commissioner Yermilyea ( NAYS: None (0) ABSTAINERS: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioner Caffall and Commissioner Walsh (2) 5.2 DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2009 -00001 Tree Removal Code Update - On behalf of the City, John Floyd, Associate Planner, distributed a revised copy of the Draft Amendments (Exhibit A). He said staff is proposing additional changes (indicated in green) because of the public comment they'd received. Six parties had submitted comments prior to the workshop: Jeff Caines, Karen Estrada, John Frewing, Phil Grillo /HBA, Sue Beilke, and Greg Berry of the City of Tigard Engineering Department. (Exhibit B) Copies were distributed to the commissioners for their review. As a reminder, Floyd said the scope of this amendment had been defined narrowly by Council, and, as such, staff recommends that the Commission limit its review to the submittal requirements and not other issues such as mitigation. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — March 16, 2009 — Page 3 of 9 From the comments received, Floyd addressed the major concerns: HBA • Request for Continuance. On Friday the HBA submitted a request for a 30 day continuance. The basis for this request was to allow their attorney additional time to review the material and suggest additional revisions which may result in the HBA abandoning intent to appeal a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to LUBA. Staff recommends that the continuance be denied for the following reasons: o The HBA has been aware of these amendments for some time; this issue was not sprung on them. • They were present at the Tree Board meeting in December. • They submitted comments at the February 23 workshop. • They were invited by email and at the workshop to meet with staff prior to the hearing. ■ The language released last week was substantially the same as that considered at the workshop. o The PC is not the final hearing body. The commission can recommend these changes to Council who can consider theix comments and, if they so choose, remand it back to the Planning Commission. o The LUBA appeal of our Urban Forest Comp Plan Amendment should be treated as a separate item as a Code Amendment. Staff has made tentative plans to meet with the HBA and their attorney in approximately 2 weeks, whereupon we will be discussing the Comp Plan appeal, and the Code Amendment under consideration tonight. Jeff Caines: • Concerned with the word practicable. As stated earlier, Staff proposes to change the phrasing from "wherever possible" to "wherever practicable ", with the meaning of practicable defined. This term introduces a degree of reasonableness to the code rather than an absolute (i.e. anything is possible with enough engineering), as was done in the Comprehensive Plan, and is consistent with the purpose statement which recognizes that trees may have to be removed as a result of development. What is being asked of an applicant is a reasonable attempt at preservation, which will be defined by the applicant themselves as they work with their. arborist. • Concern with inventorying trees off -site. The intent of this requirement is to protect trees off -site, and not to increase mitigation obligations. To address this concern, staff recommends the following changes: o . Remove references to off -site trees in section 18.790.030.1k and B(1), and reinstate the 25' rule in 18.790.030.B(4). The revised language would therefore require `A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees durit, and after construction, including those within 25 of the affected lot (as estimated by the project arbor if permission to enter is not granted by adjacent property owners)'; PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — March 16, 2009 — Page 4 of 9 • Preliminary grading and upfront mitigation plans. Staff has introduced a revisions procedure for Major and Minor modifications, you will find it under Section 790.030.E and marked in green. • Approval Criteria. Staff has prepared the approval criteria in concert with the City Attorney. That said, we do recommend a slight change i.n .language in criteria #4 to change "shall also comply" to "complies ". • Final Thoughts. Mr. Caines wants to ensure that any code changes are workable and that those charged with .implementing the code are included in the crafting of it. For the record, this code was developed in concert with current planning staff and the City Attorney, in addition to the normal circulation around other city departments and external agencies. Karen Estrada • Wants the code to increase the mitigation requirement from one year to two years prior to application — and require the removal of downed trees. o The short answer is that these issues are beyond the scope of tonight's changes. o Staff is sympathetic to her concerns as we know that developers and property owners frequently clear -cut or substantially defoliate their properties to avoid mitigation fees, and continue to do so to this day, but mitigation is within the Council's scope for this amendment. John Frewing • Many of John's comments are out of scope or were addressed in responses to Jeff Caines. • Editorial Changes. Staff appreciates TM-Ir. Frewing's attention to detail and recommends the implementation of the following grammatical errors: o [Comment 2] Reinstate the words "on...lands" in 18.790.010.B(2) o [Comment 11] Removed the words "that are" in 790.030.B.5.(d) o [Comment 12] Insert the word "be" before "compensated" in 790.030.B.6 • [Comment 9] Content of plans. Mr. Frewing is concerned that one sheet would show trees while another shows the proposed improvements. In response, staff recommends the following changes to 790.030.B.(5): "The accompanying site plan shall include the location of all existing trees in addit7ien relation to the location of proposed grading..." • [Comment 10] Construction Plans. This was also noticed by Mr. Caines. Recommend the replacement of the word "construction" with "staging area" or removal of this word altogether. • [Comment 11] Goal 5 impacts. This amendment is not intended, nor will it affect, the City's Goal 5 resource protection program. It merely clarifies submittal requirements to achieve the stated purposes set forth in 790.010.B1 -7 (i.e. water quality, erosion, aesthetic beauty, etc...). PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES— March 16, 2009 — Page 5 of 9 Sue Beilke / Fans of Fanno Creek • The letter makes a lot of good points about the value of trees to Goal 5 resources, but, as stated before, Goal 5 resource protection is not the subject of this amendment. • • We recommend that Ms. Beilke and Fans of Fanno Creek stay interested in our code amendments, particularly the upland tree grove .inventories that are planned for our 2009/10 fiscal year. Greg Berry / City of Tigard Engineering • The City of Tigard Engineering Department requests that language regarding "adjacent right of way" be removed to ensure that the City retains authority of tree removal in the public right of way to ensure public improvement standards are adhered to. • Planning Department staff finds that the engineering department would not be hindered by the proposed language. The language only obligates an applicant to save trees where practicable in the design process - not to override engineering standards or other requirements of City Code. In conclusion, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt DCA2009 -00001 as proposed in attachment 1, as amended through the public hearing process, and subject to the findings contained in the staff report. QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONERS The definition of practicable - is that definition consistent with the Comp Plan? Yes - word for word. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR • John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223 signed up to speak both in favor and against. He distributed a 3"' set of comments (included in Exhibit B). He was advised by President Inman to choose a side and that if he wanted to speak on both sides, his time would be divided into two, rather than giving him twice as much time. Frewing said he was speaking both in favor and against different parts of the subject. Frewing touched on some of his comments addressed in his written testimony. He spoke about fish and wildlife. He believes it's a legitimate content requirement to ask an applicant to tell how they have managed (or addressed) fish and wildlife matters in their tree removal. He said the word "hazardous tree" makes no provision for saying "if 1 cut off the rotten limb, the tree is just fine." Hazardous tree should be defined as one which cannot be pruned or otherwise treated to become non - hazardous. That would result in saving another tree. He believes some arborists may be trying to get another job from the same developer and so will call a lot of trees hazardous which could be trimmed or somehow managed so that they don't become hazardous. So he doesn't like the definition of hazardous. He also noted that the standard proposed for 790.030E.2 is so vague as to be meaningless, and will undoubtedly lead to unnecessary conflict. He suggested that, instead, it read "The required plan for all the trees on the site clearly shows PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - March 16, 2009 - Page 6 of 9 • 1 evidence of site development decisions where alternatives are possible and a choice has been made which favors tree protection over tree removal wherever practicable." QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS There was a general question about the age of trees and comments about hazardous trees. Jeff Caines, 8196 SW Hall Blvd., #232, Beaverton, OR 97219 went over his comment letter (Exhibit B). In addition, he asked what is the role and liability of the project arborist on both sides. He believes the City arborist should also have to sign off on the plans. QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONERS There was a general question about set - backs. PUBLIC TESTIMONY — IN OPPOSITION — None. QUESTIONS OF- STAFF As to the set -back question, the City Arborist, Todd Prager, answered — "25 feet is a good place to start." There was a bit of a discussion regarding set- backs. Can you speak to the third party review and how that would work? Planning Manager, Dick Bewersdorff, answered — `Basically, if our arborist and their arborist can't agree, then a third arborist is hired and that arborist makes the decision and we go with that. The applicant would pay for the arborist." Commissioner Vermilyea suggested changing the definition of practicable to Webster's definition which is "reasonably capable of being done or accomplished with available means or resources." Vermilyea had a second comment with respect to page 4. E. Approval. Criteria #2. He said he likes John Frewing's language change. He said it's a lot more functional than what's written. Who determines the definition of practicable? "The applicant would determine it." PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — March 16, 2009 — Page 7 of 9 DELIBERATIONS President Inman sumrned up the revisions thus fax: 1. Section 18.790.030.13.3 striking "original certified arborist" and changing it to "a certified arborist." 2. Section 18.790.020.A.4 Commissioner Vermilyea's definition of practicable to be "reasonably capable of being done or accomplished with "available means or resources" - and striking the rest. 3. Section 18.790.010.13.4 "lands" should not be stricken but "sensitive" should. 4. Section 18.790.030.112 "the tree plan demonstrates that the applicant has affirmably attempted to protect, as opposed to remove, trees on project site." "Where practicable" will not be included. 5. So far as the Home Builders Association suggesting a continuation - No one thought it was a good idea to continue the meeting to another date. 6. "Hazardous Tree" definition_ Consensus was to incorporate this into their mitigation discussion. MOTION Commissioner Vermilyea made a motion: "I move the Planning Commission forward a recomrriendation of approval to the City Council of application DCA2009 -00001 as set forth in Attachment 1 as amended tonight at this hearing, which supersedes prior versions." Commissioner Hasman seconded the motion. The motion passed on a recorded vote, the Council voted as follows: AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner F'ishel, Commissioner Hasman, Commissioner Inman, and Commissioner Vermilyea (6) NAYS: Commissioner Muldoon (1) ABSTAINERS: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioner Caffall and Commissioner Walsh (2) PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — March 16, 2009 — Page 8 of 9 • Commissioner :Muldoon stated his opposition due to the fact that he didn't like the age of the tree definition and he didn't like the last amendment. (This will go to the Cite Council on May 12, 2009.] PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 6. OTHER BUSINESS • 'Ihe next public hearing will take place on April 6th and will include the Hwy 99W Plan, the Sensitive Lands Permit (continued), & an Urban Forestry Master Plan update. Commissioner Verrilyea informed the commission that he will be teaching a class at PCC Rock Creek starting in a few weeks and those classes are on Mondays. He will miss about 4 meetings from the 31;t of March thru the first part of )une. He will let Doreen Laughlin know the exact dates. President Inman said she would have to miss the May 4th meeting. 7. ADJOURNMENT President Inman adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Doreen Laughlin, Planning Commihsion Secretary ATTEST: President j odic Inman PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — March 16, 2009 — Page 9 of 9 Exhibit A Draft Amendments to TDC Section 18.790 (Tree Removal) Sections: 18.790.010 Purpose 18.790.020 Definitions 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement 18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention 18.790.050 Permit-- Applie Tree Remo\ al on a 18.790.060 zil - ti 1 Viililatir,n`: .;nd li. =31;t� :�t.�crit Stand.mi 18.790.010 Purpose A. Value of trees, After years of both natural growth and planting by residents, the City now benefits from a large number of trees. These trees of varied types add to the aesthetic beauty of the community, help clean the air, help control erosion, maintain water quality and provide noise barriers. B. Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are to: 1. Encourage the preservation, planting and replacement of trees in the City; 2. Regulate the removal of trees >>r. e .:nd in the City to eliminate unnecessary removal of trees; 3. Provide for a tree plan for developing properties; 4. Protect sensitive l from erosion; 5. Protect water quality; 6. Provide incentives for tree retention and protection; and 7. Regulate commercial forestry to control the removal of trees in an urban environment. C. Recognize need for exceptions. The City recognizes that, notwithstanding these purposes, at the time of development it may be necessary to remove certain trees in order to accommodate structures, streets utilities, and other needed or required improvements within the development. 18.790.020 Definitions A. Definitions. The following definitions apply to regulations governing the preservation and removal of trees contained in this chapter exclusively: 1. "Canopy cover" means the area above ground which is covered by the trunk and branches of the tree; 2. "Commercial forestry" means the removal of ten or more trees per acre per calendar year for sale. Tree removal undertaken by means of an approved tree removal plan under Section 18.790.030 is not considered commercial forestry under this definition; 3. "Hazardous tree" means a tree which by reason of disease, infestation, age, or other condition presents a known and immediate hazard to persons or to public or private property; 4. "Practicable" means reasonably capable of being done or accomplished with the paeans at hand and circumstances as they are. • 5. "Pruning" means the cutting or trimming of a tree in a manner which is consistent with recognized Draft Amendments 1 DCA2009 -00001 March 16, 2009 tree maintenance practices; 6. "Removal" means the cutting or removing of 50 percent (50 %) or more of a crown, trunk or root system of a tree, or any action which results in the loss of aesthetic or physiological viability or causes the tree to fall or be in immediate danger of falling. "Removal" shall not include pruning; 7. "Tree" means : - .::::.::: : - :.. .: . , . _ - - - - ..: - - - . - .. - : :.. : t alldine .1 (lUfiv_?l_ lilt }!'1\ \Inchis six inches or more in .11i per '-i1 •4 'ht n measured 4 inches (-1 . ' 2 Ieetlab s - _i11L iIt , Y r o u n d lee el at the base of the trunk_If atr e split= intnmultiple. trunk• abo‘e a roiind, hui telow 54 inches. the wink i? me a =ure d at its Hiatt narrow point beneath the - split. and is considered one tree. If the nee split into multiple trunks below orciund.eac:h trunk shall }. considered one tree; 8. "Sensitive lands" means those lands described at Chapter 18.775 of the title. B. General rule. Except where the context dearly indicates otherwise, words in the present tense shall include the future and words in the singular shall include the pluraL 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement A. Tree Plan Required: A tree plan for the planting, removal, and protection of trees prepared and signed by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel, ad em - r-i.;- l;f-k*t -��- , or combination thereof . ` '.. rife l — for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever pr,::ihie practicable. B. Plan Requirements. In order to determine that the Citv'spreference for tree protection has been 1ccrporated into the project design, t.The tree plan shall include the following: 1. Identification of the location, size . condition, and species of all existing trees, including trees - dc_ignatcd as si by the cit=. within 2.5 feet ?f the "°ete - j tit e - {a;; c tmafed413 the- 3rojeg-t -ztf - • ��3 5". — ii1C= 2. Identification of a program to save retain existing trees or to mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper as measured to the nearest tenth of an inch. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060D, in accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: a. Retention of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program in accordance with Section 18.790.060D of no net loss of trees; b. Retention of from 25% to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two- thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; c. Retention of from 50% to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; d. Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation. 3. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed and the reason for their removal; 4 A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction including those within 25 feet of the affected lot or parcel tas Draft Amendments DCA2009 -00001 March 16, 2009 • estimated by the project arborist if pennissiW.n to enter is not red 3cli.rct nt property_. owner ?; A narrative and site plan demonstrating how - the following design and construction techniques will be utilized tube extent _piacti_cable,.. - -The format of the_ narrative must address each technique with a "yes" or "no" answer, followed by a written explanation as to_ Item the ldt_s have included said techniques, or why said techniques ate not practicable.__ the accompanying site plan shall include the location of all existing trees in aEltti{i relation to the the location of proposed grading, lot lines, and improvements. a. Does time project protect and retain existing non- hazardous trees that are not likely to • become a hazard during or soon after development given their existing condition. abiliy to withstand unavoidable developtnent related impacts. proximity to proposed land uses - and structures, and susceptibility to windthrow? h. Do grading itlifl-eeentAfttetiett plans avoid soil compaction within the driplines of existing trees to be preserved. the removal of existing soil within driplines. or the placement of new soil within the driplines of existing trees to he preserved? c. Are infrastructure improvements such as stormwater facilities, utilities, sidewalks, and other improvements located outside of the driplines of existing trees? d. Are lot layouts. road and driveway configurations, building locations. and building footprints that-ate located outside of the driplines of existing trees? e. Are parking lot improvements Located outside of the driplines of existing trees? If no. can parking spaces be reduced to a number consistent with minimum parking stall requirements? f. Does the site plan locate required open space and landscaping in areas that contain existing trees? o . Does the project utilize lot size averaging and /or the reduction of lot width and depth to preserve trees. as allowed per 18.790.040A(2) and (3): h. If the ro'ect cann t avoid disturbance within the driplines of existin_ trees does the protection program identify compatible construction techniques that will be used to prevent or reduce harm to existing trees (i.e. tunneling for utilities, no - dig pavement installation, use of retaining walls to limit disturbance) to a level that the health and longevity of the trees will not be significantly impacted? 6. A mitigation plan signed by the project arborist that includes the location, species, spacing. and lantin • s ecifications for the re lacement trees and or the amount of cali er inches that will be compensated through fees in lieu of planting. C. 3t:b-edi:cr:= Prior tree removal. Trees removed within the period of one year prior to a development application listed above will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.790.060D. D. Peer_Review. In •uestions of ade uac * the Mannino Di ec •r.or . • rovin' authority may. at 3 Draft Amendments DCA2009 -00001 March 16, 2009 their discretion. subject a tree plan. to. peer by a third -p•ar certified _}rborist tinder contract to the CityThe findings and recommendations of the thirirEparry Lertified arhorist shall lie incorporated into the tree plan bv revision or condition of aRproyal. _I_-Y.__Appro+al Criteria. The approval authority may approve. appritrewith conditions. or eleny _a trey: plan based on the folior;ing_approval criteria: 1. 'Iltc tree plan contains all content requirements set forth in sections 18_790.030(A) through iC), including the siiertature of a certified a on all . documents. attachments, and amendments; and 2. The tree plan supports a finding that protection_ is preferred over removal wherever • practicable: and • 3. In cases where the Tree Plan has been peer reviewed, the recommendations of the third-partv arhorist have been incorporated into the tree_plan through revisions by the original certified arhorist, or conditions' of approval: and 4. Tree removal on sensitive lands sh-all-also-eitmply complies with requirements set forth in 18.790.050. F. Modifications to approved Tree Plans. Approved tree plans may be modified in the following manner. 1. Major Modification(s) to Approved Tree Protection Plans A. Determination request. An :applicant may request approval of a modification to an approved tree protection plan or existing development bv: 1. Providing the Director AA ith three copies of the proposed modified tree protection plan: an 2. A narrativ + +Itirh indicates the rationale for the proposed modification addressing the changes listed in subsection B below. R. E+ aivation criteria. The Director shall determine that a major modification(s) will result if one or more of the following. changes are proposed. There will be: 1. The total number of trees being removed increases by 10% or more, as defined bv the whole of the original project; or • 2. The total number of caliper inches being removed increases by 10% or more: C. When the determination is made. Upon determining that the proposed modification to the tree protection plan is a major modification. the applicant shall submit a new development application in accordance with the original project approval. 2. Minor A1odification(s1 to Approved Tree Protection Plans or Evistine Development A. Minor modification defined. Any modification w hich is not ++ itltin the description of a major modification as provided in Section 1 &790.030.F.1 shall be considered a minor modification. B. Process. An applicant may request annrow'al of a minor modification as follows: 4 Draft Amendments DCA2009 -00001 March 16, 2009 S 1. Prr lti.I ii dle It 1 °� z= =t 4 +it9t 14'tlrr tAitlk trt tlti ocupokrti ,,i:Li; ro. A tiYti°4`titt'ie hich ttitdli 5ti'+ tl'i ratteti;tlt' l e .$Piro) at criteria. Ball 11 4. i ➢ ' 7; s.bt k a iai irGc eti r llto +itt�t ie Community Des 61:91)1nt Director's revs oN 1 €.e,rkt Firalittm 1, ;t 1. The §tropo cii (14.`6c.1( 3Yd is in coint'31tanta<z. :snit 18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention A. Incentives. To assist in the preservation and retention of existing trees, the Director may apply one or more of the following incentives as part of development review approval and the provisions of a tree plan according to Section 18.790.030: 1. Density bonus. For each 2° o of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a 1°/o bonus may be applied to density computations of Chapter 18.715. No more than a 20 bonus may be granted for any one development The percentage density bonus shall be applied to the number of dwelling units allowed in the underlying zone. This bonus is not applicable to trees preserved in areas of floodplain, slopes greater than 25 °'o, drainageways, or wetlands that would otherwise be precluded from development; 2. Lot size averaging. To retain existing trees over 12 inches in caliper in the development plan for any land division under Chapter 18.400, lot size may be averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot size allowed by the underlying zone as long as the average lot area for all Lots and private open space is not less than that allowed by the underlying zone. No lot area shall be less than 80 °0 of the minimum lot size allowed in the zone; 3. Lot width and depth. To retain existing trees over 12 inches in caliper in the development plan for any and division under Chapter 18.400, lot width and lot depth may be reduced up to 20 °'0 of that required by the underlying zone; 4. Commercial /industrial /civic use parking. For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan for commercial, industrial or civic uses listed in Section 18.765.080,1Minimum and Maximum Off - Street Parking Requirements, a 1% reduction in the amount of required parking may be granted. No more than a 20 % reduction in the required amount of parking may be granted for any one development; 5. Commercial /industrial /civic use landscaping. For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a 1% reduction in the required amount of landscaping may be granted. No more than 20% of the required amount of landscaping may be reduced for any one development. B. Subsequent removal of a tree. Any tree preserved or retained in accordance with this section may thereafter be removed only for the reasons set out in a tree plan, in accordance with Section 18.790.030, or as a condition of approval for a conditional use, and shall not be subject to removal under any other section of this chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of approval of any development permit affected by this section to the effect that such tree may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be 5 Draft Amendments DCA2009-00001 March 16, 2009 considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. The form of this deed restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director. C. Site development modifications granted as incentives. A modification to development requirements granted under this section shall not conflict with any other restriction on the use of the property, including but not limited to easements and conditions of development approval. D. Design modifications of public improvements. The City Engineer may adjust design specifications of public improvements to accomrnod.are tree retention where possible and whet!e it would not interfere with . safety or increase maintenance costs. 18.790.050 Pcr'.nit s- ieabilit .1 ret.' s e.mo, _al ,;n Sensitive L,.nd Ar =s A. Removal permit required. Tree .removal permits shall be required only for the removal of any tree which is located on or in a sensitive land area as defined by Chapter 18.775. The permit for removal of a tree • shall be processed as a Type I procedure as governed by Section 18.390.030, using the following approval criteria: 1. Removal of the tree must not have a measurable negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters or water quality as evidenced by an erosion control plan which precludes: a. Deposits o.f.mud, dirt, sediment or similar material exceeding 1/2 cubic foot in volume on public or private streets, adjacent property, or into the storm and surface water system, either by direct deposit, dropping, discharge or as a result of the action of erosion; b. Evidence of concentrated flows of water over bare soils; turbid or sediment -laden flows; or evidence of on -site erosion such as rivulets on bare soil slopes where the flow of water is not filtered or captured on site using the techniques of Chapter 5 of the Washington County Unified Sewerage Agency Environmental Protection and Erosion Control rules. 2. Within stream or wetland corridors, as defined as 50 feet from the boundary of the stream or wetland, tree removal must maintain no less than a 75% canopy cover or no less than the existing canopy cover if the existing canopy cover is less than 75 %. B. Effective date of permit. A tree removal permit shall be effective for one and one -half years from the date of approval. C. Extension. Upon written .request by the applicant prior to the expiration of the existing permit, a tree removal permit shall be extended for a period of up to one year if the Director finds that the applicant is in compliance with all prior conditions of permit approval and that no material facts stated in the original application have changed. D. Removal permit not required. A tree removal permit shall not be required for the removal of a tree which: 1. Obstructs visual clearance as defined in Chapter 18.795 of the tide; • 2. Is a hazardous tree; 3. Is a nuisance affecting public safety as defined in Chapter 7.40 of the Municipal Code; 4. Is used for Christmas tree production, or land registered with the Washington County Assessor's • office as tax- deferred tree farm or small woodlands, but does not stand on sensitive lands. Draft Amendments 6 DCA2009 -00001 March 16, 2009 E. Prohibition of commercial forestry. Corrunercial forestry as defined by Section 18.790.020 A.2., excluding D.4. above, is not permitted. 18.790.060 =.�1 '6 t:,,, -i u�i: i�-`'r`tzt' ✓'. X71 1 li t,ji� �.5:1� i�±: Tai 1� � �:T =;-.f �l'.•ii!i:.PC` A. Violations. The following constitute a violation of this chapter: 1. Removal of a tree: a. Without a valid tree removal pernvt; or b. In noncompliance with any condition of approval of a twee removal permit; o.t • c. In noncompliance with any condition of any City permit or development approval; or d. In noncompliance with any other section of this title. 2. Breach of a condition of any City permit or development approval, which results in damage to a tree or its root system. B. Remedies. If the Director has .reason ro believe that a violation of this chapter has occurred, then he or she may do any or all of the following: 1. Require the owner of the .land on which the tree was located to submit sufficient documentation, which may include a written statement from a qualified arborist or forester, showing that removal of the tree was permitted by this chapter; 2. Pursuant to Section 18.390.050., initiate a hearing on revocation of the tree removal permit and /or any other permit or approval for which this chapter was an approval standard; 3. Issue a stop order pursuant to Section 18.230 of this title; 4. Issue a citation pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Municipal Code; 5. Take any other action allowed by law. C. Fines. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, any party found to be in violation of this chapter pursuant to Section 1.16 of the Municipal Code shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 and shall be required to remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation shall include, but not be limited to, the following: • 1. Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section D below; and 2. Payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of any unlawfully removed or damaged tree, as determined using the most current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal. D. Guidelines for replacement. Replacement of a tree shall take place according to the following guidelines: 1. A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species taking into consideration site characteristics; 2. If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damaged is not reasonably available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value; 3. If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be • viable, the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated caliper size of the tree removed or damaged by the caliper size of the largest reasonably Draft Amendments 7 . DCA2009 -00001 March 16, 2009 available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the may require one or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the City, either public property or, with the consent of the owner, private property; 4. The planting of a replacement u:ee shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. E. In lieu -of payment. In lieu of tree replacement under Section D above, a parts* may, with the consent of the Director, elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement. F. Exclusivity. The remedies set out in this section shall not be exclusive. • • Draft Amendments 8 DCA2009-00001 March 16, 2009 fi Exhibit B City of Tigard • TIGARD Memorandum To: President Jodie Inman and M.embers of the Planning Commission From: John Floyd, Associate Planner Re: Public Comment for DCA2009 -00001 (Tree Removal Code Ar endment) Date: March 13, 2009 • Attached are written comments from the public regarding DCA2009 -00001 (free Removal Code Amendment), scheduled for a public hearing before Planning Commission on Monday, March 16. As of Friday morning, the correspondence received includes the following: 1. Email and attached Memorandum from Jeff Caines (March 10, 2009) 2. Letter from Karen Estrada (March 11, 2009) 1 Email from John Frewing (March 11, 2009) 4. Email from john Frewing (March 12, 2009) The themes of the comments vary, and staff will address them at the hearing on Monday night. As a reminder, the proposed amendments are the result of very specific council direction to implement an overturned director's interpretation through a code amendment. The proposed language does not address other aspects of the tree code such as mitigation or incentives, which will be the subject of future code amendments. Staff urges the Planning Commission to review these comments thoroughly before the hearing to ensure efficient and productive deliberation. As always, if you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 503 -718 -2429 or johnfl(c tigard- or.gov. i • • • John Floyd From: Jeff Caines (jeffcaines @hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 5:16 PM To: John Floyd Subject: Tree Code Comments Attachments: Tigard_Tree_Comments[1].doc John: Here are my cornments for the Tigard tree code. If you want, we can discuss my comments prior to the hearing and I could revise my comments based on our conversation. • Thank you for your time. Jeff Caines, AICP • 503 -686 -1660 - Cell • t . MEMORANDUM To: City of Tigard Planning Commission From: Jeff Caines, AICP CC: Date: March 12, 2009 • Re: Proposed Tree Code Amendments Below are my comments on the proposed tree code amendments that are being considered. To summarize, in order for the code to work for the benefit of all parties, it is important to take the proposed language through a "stress" test; .meaning that Staff should review the proposed code language against a project that is currently being reviewed. From this "stress" test, the question of "how can this new code language be applied by the City or the Applicant ?" How could the applicant / property owner complete the new requirements? What is the benefit to the City and the citizens it serves? • Specific Comments: 18.790.020 — Definitions: The term "Practicable" seems too broad. Who will determine what is reasonably capable of being done or accomplished? Is it staff, the developer, the property owner or the neighbors or an interest group? Just about any type of development can occur or can be accomplished "with the means at hand and circumstances as they are." At what point does a project or a condition of approval become practicable verse impracticable? This definition is left up to the changing winds of interpretation. • 18.790.030 — A. Tree Plan Required: "Signed": What is the intent of having a "signed" tree plan by the arborist? Is it the assumption that the City puts a liability on the arborist as they would for an engineer or landscape architect? • "Adjacent ROW ": The right of way belongs to the public and not to a private individual. The • trees might be surveyed in to the project, but the trees in the public right of way should not be counted against the development because of the standards put on the applicant by the City. Trees in the area for dedication should be included in this group as well. B. Plan Requirements: • 1: "Condition of all trees within 25 feet of the affected lot or parcel" This is a requirement that Staff needs to ask itself, how can this be carried out? How can an arborist look at a tree within • 25 -fee and make a determination as to the condition of the tree'? Without an up -close inspection of each tree, an arborist may not be able to make a proper evaluation. There may be complications to tree plans if the arborist will not sign the plan because they are singing the conditions of trees that have not been property evaluated. This plan requirement should be addressed and explained by the City's arborist as to how this requirement should be carried out using proper arborist evaluation methods? 2: "as measured to the nearest tenth of an inch". I find that measuring to the nearest 1/10" may be extreme. Tree evaluation may be considered more of an art than a science what some factors are considered; meaning that different people may measure the tree not in the exact same spot on the tree based on ground elevation. I find that keeping to the standard the City has used for many years suffices. Has the arborist community adopted new standards (e.g., American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards or the International Society of Arborists (ISA) standards)? 5: Attempting to write a narrative at the preliminary stage of the project is a challenge. The • subtopics address items that can only be determined during the construction document stage of the development or only once the project is build out completely. For example, grading and construction plans are produced after the preliminary plan has been approved. It is impossible to state if the construction plans avoid grading and soil compaction of the trees until the Engineering .Department has reviewed the plan set with the required details. Also attempting to utilize other factors such as lot averaging or width/depth reduction does not appear to carry any incentives. 6: Mitigation Plan: A mitigation plan is already a condition of approval for many applications. It is near impossible to produce an accurate mitigation plan until the majority of the development has occurred. The City required that all trees that may be removed during construction be identified in the preliminary stages of the project. This policy is based in a Hearings Officer decision. Therefore, the trees that are identified on a tree removal plan may or may not be removed once the project is complete. Therefore, the number of trees or inches required for mitigation (including the fee in lieu) will ultimately change. In addition, if a mitigation plan is submitted to the City for review, the City should sign off on the mitigation plan by stamping approved with the City arborist's signature. The City should be required to review and approve a mitigation plan. All other departments i.e., Planning, Engineering, Building including all inspectors are required to sign off on plans and inspections. The City arborist should be no exception. D. Peer Review: Who will make the final decision as to whether a tree plan is adequate or not? If the "Director or deciding authority" has the ability to send the plan to a third party for a peer review, will the applicant have the same right? Will the City pay this person or will the applicant have to pay for the third party peer review? What if the number of plans being reviewed by the third party becomes common practice? What becomes of the authority of the City Arborist? • B. Approval Criteria: 2. The tree plan supports a finding that protection is preferred over removal wherever practicable; It is not purpose of the applicant to make findings that the tree plan, as submitted, preferred • protection over tree'rernoval. It is the role of the reviewing authority to snake findings that the proposed tree plan meets the standards set forth in the development code. Tithe City wanted to protect trees, the reviewing body would allow great latitude in building design, infrastructure adjustments and lot configuration. 3. In cases where the Tree Plan has been peer reviewed, the recommendations of the third -party arborist have been incorporated into the tree plan through revisions by the original certified arborist, or condition(s) of approval; and This is not an approval criterion. This is a statement to ensure that the recommendations of the • third party peer review have been incorporated in the staff report. The staff report comes after the City has reviewed the project against the Development Code. How can one state that an action is based on a future event has taken place? • Final Thought: The tree code under review is an important document that should not be taken lightly. Trees are an important part of every city. The need between trees and the build environment must be in balance for any city to thrive and be fruitful. Before the city of Tigard adopts any new development code standards, is would be.wise to ask if the current planning staff has had the full opportunity to review the code and bring up different scenarios that normally arise with • development applications. It is the current planners and front counter staff that have to apply the new code language. It would benefit all parties to get feedback :from the staff that will implement the new code to ensure that there is a pragmatic solution to any new adopted code language. Please add me as a party of record for this Development Code Amendment. Thank you for your time. I look forward testifying in front of the Planning Commission on March 16, 2009. March 11, 2009 To: Tigard Planning Commission As I am unable to attend the Public Hearing, I am submitting comments in writing.. I believe the amendments presented show that a great deal of thought has been given to the Tigard community environment. It appears to me, however, the main focus is on trees for larger developments, especially those in sensitive lands. The "infill" development in existing neighborhoods is not necessarily specifically addressed, nor the clearing of trees on such parcels or on private property, whether for immediate construction or not. 1 am speaking mainly of properties capable of providing one to four building sites, containing multiple trees, and surrounded by existing homes. 1. The current provision under 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement Section C states that "trees • removed within the period of one year prior to a development application listed above will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above." This provision has been used to avoid complying with the plan because of the relatively short time period in a property development line. I would recommend that it be increased to two years. If the purpose of tree removal is NOT to avoid complying with the tree plan, then a change will not impact a developer or resident owner. 2. There is no requirement for removal of trees that have been cut down on unoccupied property. They can stay indefinitely, and where that might not be an issue for one tree, it creates a devaluation of surrounding property and a reduction in the quality of the environment when 10 or 20 trees have been cut down. Both of these "gaps" have allowed those who are not interested in the neighborhood as a home, but only as an investment, to create eyesores waiting for development or building, untended lots subject to the collection of trash and to spoil the aesthetic quality of the environment. I worked with the real industry for years and the majority of developers have an interest in not only making a profit, but in creating an attractive setting because it increases their chances of doing so. In the meantime, particularly as developing property for building does not mean immediate construction is taking place, those who have already invested their money and time in their neighborhood--the surrounding residents----see the quality of their environment and the value of their properties decrease. Any changes will not affect what has already happened to my property, pictures of which I previously sent, but until it happens to you, you don't realize the impact of regulations. It has been personally difficult for me to speak out, but I look at the results out my window every day, and if not me, then who. • 1 feel a sense of responsibility to all of us who have put in the effort and money to own and improve our homes and live in this community to say that, we who live here also need our investment protected. My hope is that these concerns will find root in consideration of additional amendments. Respectfully submitted, 4 4LC4242--eQ----- Th Karen Estrada 9269 SW North Dakota Tigard, OR 97223 • John Floyd From: jfrewing jjfrewing @teleport.comj Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 3:12 PM To: John Floyd • Cc: David Walsh; Tony Tycer Subject: Frewing Comments on Proposed Tree Protection Regulations John, • Pasted below are the comments I have currently prepared for the Planning Commission hearing on March 16 regarding TDC 18.790 revisions. I am mailing them to you on Wednesday afternoon, in the hope that you will email them to Planning Commission • members immediately, so they will have adequate time to review and consider them. 1 have been told by Planning Commission 1 members that it is hard for then: to consider comments provided first at the public hearing itself; while that may be true, the Planning Commission does have the alternative of deferring action until all members can review all comments. I have not yet reviewed Section . V of the staff report, Applicable Criteria and Findings, and this may generate more comments for the hearing on March 16, but 1 will try to forward any additional comments 1 have on Friday afternoon, hoping to minimize the comments which may be generated over the weekend and on Monday. John Frewing • John Frewing Comments on Tigard Code Amendment: Tree Plans 3/1 1/09 1 In the same way that some section headings have been modified to more correctly summarize the section contents, the title of Chapter 18.790 should be "Tree Protection and Removal ". 2 In 18.790.010B.4, the word `sensitive' should be deleted and the word `land' should be reinstated (note the singular use of word `land'). This is editorial comment. 3 The definition of 'tree', 1 8.790.020A.7, refers to caliper measurement 54 inches above mean ground level. Back in 18.790.060D.3, there is again reference to trees of a certain caliper size; however this applies to replacement trees. Two practical problems arise: is the size of replacement trees to be measured 54 inches above mean ground level, and are replacement trees really `trees' (ie over six inches in caliper at 54 inches above mean ground level)? There should be added a definition of caliper measurement or the wording of the replacement tree requirement should be clarified. 3 The word 'dripline' should be defined. It appears as a term describing some content of the tree plan, eg 18.790.030B.5.b. Does this word refer to the dripline today or at full tree maturity. What documentation of the dripline must be part of the tree protection plan? 4 The word 'crown' should be defined. It appears in the definition of 'removal'and has several possible • meanings — is it the measured biomass, or the areal extent of branches (coincident with the canopy cover), or height above first branches, or sum of branch diameters leaving a main stem or ? ?? • 5 The definition of `practicable' is not clear to someone seeking to comply with the rules — what is `reasonably • capable'? - -what are the `means at hand'? -- what is meant.by `circumstances as they are'? Has this word and the proposed definition been used in other regulatory documents in Oregon? What has been the experience of such use? I would hope that staff could give some clarity to these questions at the 3/16/09 hearing. In my mind, a better definition would either 1) revolve around a finding that some act is deemed `practicable' when it is shown that a similar tree protection action has been recommended by some other government agency and actually performed in land use development elsewhere in the metropolitan Portland area or 2) would conclude that a tree protection action is `practicable' if it does not increase project construction costs in excess of 20 %, • • A which is a percentage of development cost variability caused by other natural features of a site (eg slope, stream, soil conditions, etc) and is accommodated by development professionals quite regularly. Of course this latter approach would require some showing by the development proponent regarding cost impact of tree protection actions compared to cost without tree protection actions. 6 In 790.030A, I would ask that the word 'adjacent' be stricken from the listing of circumstances requiring a tree plan. If a city construction project, say for only a street, involves tree protection and removal, a tree plan should be required, and the word 'adjacent' is not applicable. The use of the word 'adjacent' seems to limit tree protections to at least a combination of a lot AND street development. 7 Section 790.030B1 calls for identificatio`ti of tree size. There are many ways to measure tree SIZE; I believe staff means to ask for caliper at 4.5 :feet, but others may think this refers to height, or spread of branches or other aspect of size. I suggest saying `caliper at 4.5 feet' if that is meant. 8 Section 790.030B5 calls for the accompanying site plan' to include the location of trees in addition to the location of proposed grading, lot lines, and improvements. Because the general rule is to consider singulars as plurals, this could be read to mean the accompanying site 'plans' (plural). I think this requirement (which is good) should require the tree location to be shown on the SAME site plan drawing which includes location of proposed grading, lot lines and improvements. The current situation is such that these information items are provided, but on DIFFERENT drawings such that the interference of site development with existing trees is not • readily apparent. 9 Tree plan explanatory elements a) through h) in 790.030B.5 are worded in ways that a clear `yes' or 'no' answer is difficult. In most cases the answer will be `somewhat' or `partially' or 'in some cases'. This problem can be resolved if each of these considerations would be preceded by the word `all', as in `does the project protect and retain all existing non- hazardous trees ...' or as in `do grading and construction plans avoid soil compaction within all driplines of ...' or as in `are all infrastructure improvements ....', etc. The result might be more `no' answers, but the rule allows that with appropriate explanation. An alternative might be to ask if 'at least one' non - hazardous tree is protected, or 'at least one' dripline is protected from compaction or `at least one' infrastructure improvement, etc., but such provision would not serve the purpose of showing a general preference for tree protection aver removal. • 10 Reference to 'construction plans' in 790.030B.5.b is not clear. The plans submitted at the development permit stage detail infrastructure construction, but building plans normally are not available at this stage. 11 In 790.030B.5.d, the words 'that are' immediately before the word `located' should be stricken. This is an editorial comment. 12 In 790.030B.6, the word `be' should be inserted immediately before the word `compensated'. This is an editorial comment. 13 The concept of adding `Approval Criteria' is excellent. However the standard proposed for 790.030E.2 is so vague as to be meaningless and will undoubtedly lead to unnecessary conflict. Moreover, its vagueness is such • that it will result in terribly inconsistent application — something to be avoided in writing regulations. And • finally, this criterion creates a circular line of rationale such that practically every plan will comply with it: Under existing practice, approval of an application requires a finding of compliance with approval criteria, and this approval criterion is simply that something in the plan support a finding of approval. If there is only one element of the plan complies with the content requirement, eg all the trees are identified on a plan, then it seems that one could find that the plan contains something that `supports' a finding of approval. This cannot possibly be the meaning of Tigard's 'preference for protection over removal' regulation. The words `supports a finding' should be replaced by a more objective phrase. I would suggest that the standard might read `The required plan • 2 for all th.e trees on the site clearly shows evidence of site development decisions where alternatives are possible and a choice has been made which favors tree protection over tree removal wherever practicable.' • • • 3 1 John Floyd _, From: jfrewing (jfrewing @teleport.comj Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 8 :29 AM To: John Floyd Subject: Code Amendment for Tree Plans, Testimony for 3/16/09 John, Pasted below are some supplemental comments on the proposed code amendment for tree plans. Please include them in whatever your send to the Planning Corrunission as soon as possible. These comments come from looking over the words again, and reflecting on the several applications and decisions 1 have participated in over the past five years, as well as LUBA decisions which in effect, give meaning to the Tigard regulations. . 1 have still not gotten to Section V of the staff report, and will provide my comments on that area, as well as any other which arise in its review, as soon as 1 have a bit more tine to go over them. Thanks. John Freeing • SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS ON TREE PLAN REGULATIONS 3/12/09 A. Hazardous trees are defined in terms of an 'immediate hazard to persons or to public or private property. This definition is circular because it uses the same word (hazard) to define the regulatory term (hazard). in effect the definition is saying that a hazardous tree means a tree which is a hazard — not too much help in clarifying the term. Is this what is called a tautology? I suggest that the definition be modified to define a hazardous tree as one which cannot be pruned, topped or otherwise managed to avoid immediate damage to persons or public or private property. This begs a definition of immediate damage; 1 would clarify this phrase to state that it means damage nearly certain within the next month, if the tree is not pruned, topped or otherwise managed. Such changed definition is consistent with the Tigard policy of preference for tree preservation over removal and can result in the retention of important trees (and their canopy cover) within the city. However, note that a certified arborist is not an expert on damage to persons or to public or private property; a casualty insurance - type professional should be used to make such judgment based on what part of or where an arborist ' might indicate a tree will likely fall. This addition should be part of the definition of a hazardous tree. 8 The content of a tree plan related to trees to be removed (18.790.0308.3) should require that the techniques considered to retain the tree along with their estimated costs, should be stated. C This proposal and the Tigard code itself leave out altogether any protection for trees (or whatever term should be used to describe woody stem plants Tess than 6 inches in caliper) of small size. It is precisely these trees which will grow most soon to perform the functions of trees in a forest. Such omission is contrary to the Tigard policy of preference for tree preservation over removal. Some requirement to preserve these smaller woody stems should be employed in the code. D Practicable means possible, according to my dictionary. Staff should provide some history of how this term has been applied in real life land use proceedings applicable to Tigard (eg LUBA opinions). 1 E How will city apply the 'means at hand' and 'circumstances as they are' terms? As written, the definition of these terms might be read to be whatever the applicant thinks they might mean. Shouldn't there be words reserving this interpretation to the city? F 18.790.0308.5_a does not allow for pruning of trees at the start of development to make them viable 'save' trees; it should. Eliminate the word 'non- hazardous' in first line, eliminate 'existing' in second line. G 18.790.030B.5.e calls for potential reduction of parking spaces, but ignores a practicable alternative in most situations — permeable pavement or permeable pavement breaks. Such alternative should be pointed out. H In 18.790.0308.5.g, the reference to code should be 18.790.040A.2 and .3. Editorial. 1 In 18.790.0308.6., the mitigation plan should include the size of replacement trees as well as the caliper inches to be provided. The mitigation plan, signed by the project arborist, should include a commitment and plans to monitor and maintain mitigation trees for three years to ensure establishment and probable success of the mitigation. The applicant should sign such mitigation plan as well as project arborist, since Tigard is not likely to enforce mitigation against the project arborist. The mitigation commitment should be documented as a Condition of Approval for the development; LUBA decisions have come back to the effect that a simple commitment in an application is not enforceable unless it is cited in a Condition of Approval. J 18.790.030C should be modified to specify a two year prior period for evaluation of tree removal outside development regulations. This will provide an additional incentive for persons contemplating site development to 'preserve rather then remove' trees in Tigard. K This proposal does not implement the City Council direction to preserve trees wherever 'possible', which were the words in the existing code and which were the words in the director's interpretation. Please consider reinstating this word as a standard for the preference for tree retention over removal. L Require that the certified arborist working on the tree plan must have valid Tigard Business License. Include as penalty for tree removal contrary to plan the cancellation of Tigard license for the certified arborist. M Make the penalty for illegal tree removal a minimum of $500, not 'up to' $500. TOC 18.790.060C. This is a • proper implementation of the Tigard policy to encourage 'tree preservation over removal.' N At 18.790.030D, the term 'adequacy' is used. It is not clear what this term means. I suggest that examples be provided (ie professional judgment on tree condition, removal, etc.) at least in staff testimony, so as to provide a legislative basis for later interpretations. 0 In 18.790.030 at D and E.3, there exists a MANDATORY incorporation of the third party arborist findings into the tree plan or project conditions of approval. The city may not agree with what such third party arborist • reports. I suggest that these two provisions include the parenthetical phrase regarding the third party report (as may be approved by the city). P At 18.790.030E, the first sentence should not refer to 'denying a tree plan', but should refer to denying 'an application with proposed tree plan'. Q At 18.790.030E.1., the tree plan should include more than the arborist's signature, since much of the • implementation and responsibility for compliance rests with the applicant and other contractors on site (eg 2 • • grading, excavation, surveying, equipment drivers, unloading, etc). The applicant should be required to sign the tree plan. R 18.790.030E.4. doesn't appear to be an approval criterion. Perhaps what is meant is that the application for development must include a commitment by applicant to meet 18.790.050 regarding tree removal on sensitive lands. Such commitment should be documented as a Condition of approval. • 5 Followup on comment 13 of 3/11/09. The issue of 'evidence supporting' was addressed in an earlier LUBA decision regarding the Tigard tree ordinance (Miller v City of Tigard, 46 LUBA 536, LUBA 2003 -133 (2/27/04). In the Miller decision, to meet the 'evidence supporting' phrase, the approval authority need only find that the record include something that a reasonable person would rely upon to adopt the and use decision. My • comment is that the 'evidence supporting' phrase should apply to every tree and every tree plan requirement for a proposed development. T The Miller decision also noted shortcomings of the Tigard tree ordinance, "how the tree plan is implemented or enforced by the city', as it implements the 'preference for retention over removal' standard. LUBA found one shortcoming is that the Tigard rule 'does not provide any formal mechanism for amending a tree plan once a subdivision is approved' (Assignment of Error 1). 'The Tigard rule is silent on whether changes can be made to tree plans and how the city might go about approving such changes.' These shortcomings are an integral part of implementing the director's interpretation and should be addressed in this rule revision. U The tree plan requirements of 19.790.030 should, under the requirement to identify trees, ensure that trees on the site which are to be removed should be clearly identified in the field, by colored tape or other means acceptable to the city. Such marking will allow meaningful participation by citizens to view the prospective impacts of a tree plan. - John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane Tigard, OR 97223 jfrewing@teleport.com • 3 TIGARD TREE REGULATIONS — THIRD SET OF COMMENTS 3/16/09 Aa There has long been a requirement for submittal of a 'mitigation plan', but this revision adds content requirements for that plan (0308.6.) My comment is that in individual development applications and reviews, much more than the several items mentioned in this code change are regularly requested — one important item NOT mentioned in this code change is when the required mitigation is to be done. If not specified and agreed upon in the development application /review, the mitigation may NEVER be done. Please add 'timing of mitigation work' to the content requirements of a mitigation plan. Other important elements of any mitigation plan include specification of existing conditions at the mitigation site, forest functions to be restored, maintenance plans (eg watering if necessary), remedial action for unsuccessful plantings, percent ground cover to be planted, etc.). Bb In the content requirements for the tree plan, there is great reliance on the 'dripline' as the outer boundary of concern for a tree protection zone. Six of the eight content requirements reference use of the dripline. The dripline is one standard which has been used, but other standards are also appropriate for some trees in some circumstances. This code provision should provide the city arborist the ability to specify something other than the dripline for a tree protection zone(TPZ), one which comes to mind is the TPZ defined by a 1 -foot radius for each one inch of tree caliper diameter at 54 inches above mean ground level. Cc The 'director's interpretation included the caution 'failure to demonstrate that a preference has been given to tree preservation over tree removal may result in findings for denial of the development application.' This code change should include such caution. Dd The applicable review criteria and staff report both omit any reference to review against the needs for fish and wildlife (Goal 5 resources) — either the provisions of the comp plan or the provisions of 18.775. I believe that the preservation of trees is an integral part of protecting and enhancing fish and wildlife resources — birds are not limited by a 'sensitive lands' map and rely almost exclusively on trees for nesting, roosting and feeding. It would be a reasonable requirement that the tree plan indicate how fish and wildlife resources are being addressed if trees are to be removed (eg don't cut down trees during nesting season). Please add such a content requirement for a tree plan as part of this code change. John Frewing S HBA Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland • March 13, 2009 Jodie Inman, Commission President And Members of the Tigard Planning Commission City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Tree Code Amendments (DCA 2009 -0001) Dear President Inman and Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of the Home Builders Assn. of Metro Portland to echo the request for continuance of this item as requested in the letter dated March 13, 2009 from Phillip Grillo. I too would hope that, if given a bit more time, we might be able to offer slight modification to the code language now being proposed that would make the referred to LUBA appeal moot and enable us to dismiss the appeal. Therefore, I respectfully request that the commission continue this item for 30 days. Sincerely, e/6 Ernie Platt Director of Local Government Affairs cc: John Floyd, Associate Planner Phillip Grillo, Miller Nash 15555 SW Bangy Road • Suite 301 • lake Oswego. Oregon 97035 Phone: 503.684 1880 • Fax: 503.684.0588 • www homebuildersportland.org • Striving for Affordability. Balance and Choice 3400 U.S. Bancorp Tower • 111 S.W. Fifth .4venue Portland. Oregon 97204-3699 OFFICE 503.224.5858 FAY. 503.224.0155 Phillip E. Grillo phil.grillo @millernash.com (503) 205 -2311 direct line • March 13, 2009 Jodie Inman, Commission President and Members of the Tigard Planning Commission City of Tigard 13125 S.N. Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Subject: Tree Code Amendments (DCA 2009 - 00001) Dear Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of the Homebuilders Association of Metro Portland ( "HBA "). As you know, the HBA has been involved in the City's ongoing efforts regarding tree protection. The HBA has been diligently working with the City in an effort to balance the City's interest in tree protection with its responsibilities to also provide needed housing opportunities throughout the City. . In that regard, HBA participated in the City's recently adopted comprehensive plan amendment process that led to the City's adoption of CPA 2008 -00002 (Tigard's Urban Forest). As you know, the City's decision appeal is CPA 2008 -00002 has been appealed to LUBA (LUBA No. 2008-094). That a pP currently on hold, while HBA and the City discuss possible revisions to the Tigard Tree Code that could make our appeal moot. As you know, the latest amendments to the Tigard Tree Code proposed by staff were recently released. I have not yet had an opportunity to fully review these revisions, or to meet with staff to discuss possible revisions. I am therefore requesting that the Planning Commission continue DCA 2009-00001 (Tree Code Amendments) for a period of at least 30 days, to allow HBA to complete our review and meet with City staff to discuss possible revisions. Hopefully, we will be able to reach an agreement with the City on reasonable amendments to the Tree Code that would allow us to dismiss our LUBA appeal. For all of these reasons, we ask that this PDXDOCS:1835205. 038340 -0004 Jodie Inman, Commission President March 13, 2009 Page 2 matter be continued for a period of 3o days. Thank you for your continued consideration. Respectfully submitted, Phillip E. Grillo cc: Tim Ramis, City Attorney John Floyd, Associate Planner Ernie Platt, Director of Local Government Affairs, HBA of Metro Portland • PDXDOCS:1835205.1 038390 -0002 March 16, 2009 Tigard Planning Commission City of Tigard RE: Development Code Amendment 2009 -00001 / Tree Removal Code Amendment Dear Planning Commission members: We are writing to comment on the proposed changes to the Tigard Tree Removal Code, Section 18.790. Fans of Fanno Creek is a local non- profit organization that works with many citizens to improve the health of our watershed for citizens, and the fish, wildlife and habitats that are located in Tigard. We are especially concerned with the large numbers of native trees that have been removed in Tigard in the past 10 years, especially on such sites as Dorothy Gates property on SW 81 street, this was a 3 acre fully mature, wooded forest of all native trees that was clearcut! It included a pair of nesting hawks that had nested here for years. Another clearcut was on the Senn property on SW 74 street, this was a mature western red cedar forest that was also clearcut and the developer further damaged any "trees to be retained on the tree plan" to such an extent with his bulldozer that even these had to be cut down. Tigard can no longer afford to lose native trees and every effort possible must be made to save all of our remaining native trees whether they be single trees or part of a grove or forest stand. Our comments are as follows: • Applicable Review Critieria (ARC) — Goal 5 is not listed as one of the ARC but should be as it relates to protection and conservation of natural resources which includes "trees". It is a major error to not list Goal 5 and how the proposed changes may affect trees including trees not located in Sensitive Lands. • 18.790.010. A — Value of Trees — This section needs to have added that "trees also are crucial in providing important wildlife habitat for a diverse assemblage of species in the city of Tigard." This will help to 1) meet Goal 5 requirements and 2) this is directly related to the Director's interpretation to save trees rather than remove them as trees provide habitat for many species of wildlife. • 18.790.020 Definitions — We recommend that trees should not be labeled "hazardous" if there is only a part of the tree that poses a threat, such as a dead limb. For example, several native trees in our neighborhood had dead tree limbs which were about to fall on property, and taking off the dead limb was sufficient in removing the "hazard" the tree posed. Age should not necessarily be a reason for a tree to be removed. Some native oaks in Tigard are over 150 years old but healthy, should someone be able to remove them just because they are old? We recommend that the "hazardous tree" definition be "a tree by which reason of disease, infestation, or other condition. whereby pruning of certain dead limbs for As it presently stands, the proposed changes to the Tree Removal Section of the Development Code fail to adequately address the need to protect and conserve native trees and forests as stated in the recently revised Tigard Comprehensive Plan, Natural Resources and Parks and Open Spaces Sections. We therefore request that the Planning Commission DENY the City of Tigard's recommended changes and work with citizens such as myself to rework this section of the .Development Code to benefit native trees, forests and wildlife. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to the Tree Removal Code. S incerely. Sue Beilke, Wildlife biologist, Board member of Fans of Farmo Creek a City of Tigard TIGARD Memorandum To: John Floyd, Associate manner From: Greg Berry, Project Engineer Re: DCA 2009 -00001 Tree Removal 1u Date: U237 2009 Findings: Currently, the City Engineer decides whether trees within the right -of -way are to be removed. This authority is required to ensure compliance with the City's public improvement standards. The proposed amendment to 18.790.030A would instead require tree plans for trees within the right -of -way. As part of the land use permit process, results of the tree plan would be used to determine if a tree within the right -of -way should be retained or removed. Consequently, the City Engineer would no longer have authority over trees within the right -of -way. Recommendations: The proposed amendment to 18.790.030A should not include adding "adjacent right -of- way" 4rpum'raM use wr-merts`cc 4ca 2009.00V0: tree removal cot ATTACHMENT 3 Agenda Item: 5.2 Hearing Date: March 16, 2009 Time: 7:00 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE • PLANNING COMMISSION _ FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: CODE AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY CONTENT REQUIREMENTS OF TREE PLANS FILE NO.: Development Code Amendment (DCA) DCA2009 -00001 PROPOSAL: To amend Chapter 18.790 (Tree Removal) of the Tigard Development Code to clarify how an applicant for development is to demonstrate compliance with the City's stated preference for tree protection over removal wherever possible. APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: N/A 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 ZONE: All City Zoning Districts COMP PLAN: All City Comprehensive Plan Designations LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390, and 18.790; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.2.1, 1.2.6, 2.1.2, 2.1.14, 2.1.24, 2.2.1, 2.2.6, 2.3.1, 2.3.6, 6.1.6, 6.2.3, 6.2.4, and 6.2.5; Metro Functional Plan Tides 1, 2, and 3; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, and 6. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find in favor to amend the Tree Removal regulations as proposed by the applicant, with any alterations as determined through the public hearing process and make a final recommendation to the Tigard City Council. DCA2009 -00001 PAGE 1 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION History Historically, applicants submitting for land use approval have been required to identify all trees on site, specify which will be removed, and propose protection methods for those to be retained. Any or all trees could be removed so long as they were appropriately mitigated. This practice does not prioritize protection over removal wherever possible, as required in Section 18.790.030 of the Tigard Community Development Code. This practice is also in conflict with the purpose statement of the Tree Removal Ordinance which recognizes the value of trees and calls for their preservation. That said, the code is not clear as to how an applicant can demonstrate compliance with the City's stated preference. This lack of clarity generated a Director's Interpretation in 2008 by the previous Community Development . Director, which was intended to guide the administration of Chapter 18.790 during development application review. Shortly after issuance, the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland (HBA) appealed this interpretation to the City Council. The appeal was successful and the Council overturned the interpretation on the grounds that it was more appropriately addressed through a code update. Coinciding with their ruling, Council directed staff to address this issue through updates to the development code. In response to Council direction, staff has prepared a series of text amendments that clarify and expand the submittal requirements to better enable an applicant to clearly and objectively comply with this community preference. A draft of the amendments was presented to the Tigard Tree Board for review and comment on December 4, 2008. Recommended changes and public comments received at that meeting were incorporated by staff and presented to the Planning Commission at a workshop on February 23, 2009. Following the February workshop, additional refinements to the proposed text amendments were made in response to correspondence submitted by the public and on advice from the City attorney. Proposed Changes The proposed changes to Chapter 18.790 are as follows (also found in Exhibit A), with deleted text as stlikeettts and added text bolded and underlined): 18.790 - Tree Removal 18.790.010 Purpose 18.790.020 Definitions 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement 18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention 18.790.050 Tree Removal on Sensitive Lands 18.790.060 Violations and Replacement Standards 18.790.010 Purpose A. Value of trees. After years of both natural growth and planting by residents, the City now benefits from a large number of trees. These trees of varied types add to the aesthetic beauty of the community, help clean the air, help control erosion, maintain water quality and provide noise barriers. B. Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are to: 1. Encourage the preservation, planting and replacement of trees in the City; 2. Regulate the removal of trees on scnsitivc landa in the City to eliminate unnecessary removal of trees; 3. Provide for a tree plan for developing properties; DCA2009 -00001 PAGE 2 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - - 3 4. Protect sensitive lards from erosion; 5. Protect water quality; 6. Provide incentives for tree retention and protection; and 7. Regulate commercial forestry to control the removal of trees in an urban environment. C. Recognize need for exceptions. The City recognizes that, notwithstanding these purposes, at the time of development it may be necessary to remove certain trees in order to accommodate structures, streets, utilities, and other needed or required improvements within the development. 18.790.020 Definitions A. Definitions. The following definitions apply to regulations governing the preservation and removal of trees contained in this chapter exclusively: 1. "Canopy cover" means the area above ground which is covered by the trunk and branches of the tree; 2. "Commercial forestry" means the removal of ten or more trees per acre per calendar year for sale. Tree removal undertaken by means of an approved tree removal plan under Section 18.790.030 is not considered commercial forestry under this definition; 3. "Hazardous tree" means a tree which by reason of disease, infestation, age, or other condition presents a known and immediate hazard to persons or to public or private property; 4. "Practicable" means reasonably capable of being done or accomplished with the means at hand and circumstances as they are. 5. "Pruning" means the cutting or trimming of a tree in a manner which is consistent with recognized tree maintenance practices; 6. "Removal" means the cutting or removing of 50 percent (50 %) or more of a crown, trunk or root system of a tree, or any action which results in the loss of aesthetic or physiological viability or causes the tree to fall or be in immediate danger of falling. "Removal" shall not include pruning; 7. "Tree" means a standing woody plant, or group of such, having a trunk which is six inches or more in caliper sizc when measured four fcct from ground lcvcl any standing woody plant having a trunk which is six inches or more in caliper size when measured 54 inches (4 1 /2 feet) above mean ground level at the base of the trunk. If a tree splits into multiple trunks above ground, but below 54 inches, the trunk is measured at its most narrow point beneath the split, and is considered one tree. If the tree splits into multiple trunks below ground, each trunk shall be considered one tree; 8. "Sensitive lands" means those lands described at Chapter 18.775 of the title. B. General rule. Except where the context clearly indicates otherwise, words in the present tense shall include the future and words in the singular shall include the plural. 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement A. Tree Plan Required: A tree plan for the planting, removal, and protection of trees prepared and signed by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel, adjacent road right -of -way, or combination thereof of lots or parccl3 for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever passible practicable. B. Plan Requirements. In order to determine that the City's preference for tree protection has been incorporated into the project design, tThe tree plan shall include the following: 1. Identification of the location, size , condition, and species of all existing trees, including trees DCA2009 -00001 PAGE 3 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION dcsignatcd as significant by the city within 25 feet of the affected lot or parcel (as estimated by the project arborist if permission to enter is not granted by adjacent property owner); 2. Identification of a program to save retain existing trees or to mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper as measured to the nearest tenth of an inch. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060D, in accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: a. Retention of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program in accordance with Section 18.790.060D of no net loss of trees; b. Retention of from 25% to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two- thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; c. Retention of from 50% to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; d. Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation. 3. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed and the reason for their removal; 4 A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction; 5. A narrative and site plan demonstrating how the following design and construction techniques will be utilized to the extent practicable. The format of the narrative must address each technique with a "yes" or "no" answer, followed by a written explanation as to how the plans have included said techniques, or why said techniques are not practicable. The accompanying site plan shall include the location of all existing trees in addition to the the location of proposed grading, lot lines, and improvements. a. Does the project protect and retain existing non - hazardous trees that are not likely to become a hazard durin. or soon after develo • ment . iven their existin . condition abili to withstand unavoidable development related impacts, proximity to proposed land uses and structures, and susceptibility to windthrow ? b. Do grading and construction plans avoid soil compaction within the driplines of existing trees to be preserved the removal of existing soil within driplines, or the placement of new soil within the driplines of existing trees to be preserved? c. Are infrastructure improvements such as stormwater facilities, utilities, sidewalks, and other improvements located outside of the driplines of existing trees? d. Are lot layouts, road and driveway configurations, building locations, and building footprints that are located outside of the driplines of existing trees? e. Are parking lot improvements located outside of the driplines of existing trees? If no, can parking spaces be reduced to a number consistent with minimum parking stall requirements? f. Does the site plan locate required open space and landscaping in areas that contain existing trees? g. Does the project utilize lot size averaging and /or the reduction of lot width and depth to preserve trees, as allowed per 18.790.040(2) and (3); h. If the project cannot avoid disturbance within the driplines of existing trees, does the protection program identify compatible construction techniques that will be used to prevent or DCA2009 -00001 PAGE 4 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - reduce harm to existing trees (i.e. tunneling for utilities, no — dig pavement installation, use of retaining walls to limit disturbance) to a level that the health and longevity of the trees will not be significantly impacted? 6. A mitigation plan signed by the project arborist that includes the location, species, spacing, and planting specifications for the replacement trees and /or the amount of caliper inches that will compensated through fees in lieu of planting. C. Subsequent Prior tree removal. Trees removed within the period of one year prior to a development application listed above will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.790.060D. D. Peer Review. In questions of adequacy, the Planning Director or approving authority mayYat their discretion, subject a tree plan to peer review by a third -party certified arborist under contract to the City. The findings and recommendations of the third -party certified arborist shall be incorporated into the tree plan by revision or condition of approval. E. Approval Criteria. The approval authority may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a tree plan based on the following approval criteria: 1. The tree plan contains all content requirements set forth in sections 18.790.030(A) through (C), including the signature of a certified arborist on all documents, attachments, and amendments; and 2. The tree plan supports a finding that protection is preferred over removal wherever practicable; and 3. In cases where the Tree Plan has been peer reviewed, the recommendations of the third -party arborist have been incorporated into the tree plan through revisions by the original certified arborist, or condition(s) of approval; and 4. Tree removal on sensitive lands shall also comply with requirements set forth in 18.790.050. 18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention A. Incentives. To assist in the preservation and retention of existing trees, the Director may apply one or more of the following incentives as part of development review approval and the provisions of a tree plan according to Section 18.790.030: 1. Density bonus. For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a 1% bonus may be applied to density computations of Chapter 18.715. No more than a 20% bonus may be granted for any one development. The percentage density bonus shall be applied to the number of dwelling units allowed in the underlying zone. This bonus is not applicable to trees preserved in areas of floodplain, slopes greater than 25 %, drainageways, or wetlands that would otherwise be precluded from development; 2. Lot size averaging. To retain existing trees over 12 inches in caliper in the development plan for any land division under Chapter 18.400, lot size may be averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot size allowed by the underlying zone as long as the average lot area for all lots and private open space is not less than that allowed by the underlying zone. No lot area shall be less than 80% of the minimum lot size allowed in the zone; 3. Lot width and depth. To retain existing trees over 12 inches in caliper in the development plan for any DCA2009 -00001 PAGE 5 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION land division under Chapter 18.400, lot width and lot depth may be reduced up to 20% of that required by the underlying zone; 4. Commercial /industrial /civic use parking. For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan for commercial, industrial or civic uses listed in Section 18.765.080, Minimum and Maximum Off -Street Parking Requirements, a 1% reduction in the amount of required parking may be granted. No more than a 20% reduction in the required amount of parking may be granted for any one development; 5. Commercial /industrial /civic use landscaping. For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a 1% reduction in the required amount of landscaping may be granted. No more than 20% of the required amount of landscaping may be reduced for any one development. B. Subsequent removal of a tree. Any tree preserved or retained in accordance with this section may thereafter be removed only for the reasons set out in a tree plan, in accordance with Section 18.790.030, or as a condition of approval for a conditional use, and shall not be subject to removal under any other section of this chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of approval of any development permit affected by this section to the effect that such tree may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. The form of this deed restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director. C. Site development modifications granted as incentives. A modification to development requirements granted under this section shall not conflict with any other restriction on the use of the property, including but not limited to easements and conditions of development approval. D. Design modifications of public improvements. The City Engineer may adjust design specifications of public improvements to accommodate tree retention where possible and where it would not interfere with safety or increase maintenance costs. 18.790.050 Tree Removal on Sensitive Land Areas A. Removal permit required. Tree removal permits shall be required only for the removal of any tree which is located on or in a sensitive land area as defined by Chapter 18.775. The permit for removal of a tree shall be processed as a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using the following approval criteria: 1. Removal of the tree must not have a measurable negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters or water quality as evidenced by an erosion control plan which precludes: a. Deposits of mud, dirt, sediment or similar material exceeding 1/2 cubic foot in volume on public or private streets, adjacent property, or into the storm and surface water system, either by direct deposit, dropping, discharge or as a result of the action of erosion; b. Evidence of concentrated flows of water over bare soils; turbid or sediment -laden flows; or evidence of on -site erosion such as rivulets on bare soil slopes where the flow of water is not filtered or captured on site using the techniques of Chapter 5 of the Washington County Unified Sewerage Agency Environmental Protection and Erosion Control rules. 2. Within stream or wetland corridors, as defined as 50 feet from the boundary of the stream or wetland, tree removal must maintain no less than a 75% canopy cover or no less than the existing canopy cover if the existing canopy cover is less than 75 %. B. Effective date of permit. A tree removal permit shall be effective for one and one -half years from the date of approval. DCA2009 -00001 PAGE 6 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - C. Extension. Upon written request by the applicant prior to the expiration of the existing permit, a tree removal permit shall be extended for a period of up to one year if the Director finds that the applicant is in compliance with all prior conditions of permit approval and that no material facts stated in the original application have changed. D. Removal permit not required. A tree removal permit shall not be required for the removal of a tree which: 1. Obstructs visual clearance as defined in Chapter 18.795 of the title; 2. Is a hazardous tree; 3. Is a nuisance affecting public safety as defined in Chapter 7.40 of the Municipal Code; 4. Is used for Christmas tree production, or land registered with the Washington County Assessor's office as tax- deferred tree farm or small woodlands, but does not stand on sensitive lands. E. Prohibition of commercial forestry. Commercial forestry as defined by Section 18.790.020 A.2., excluding D.4. above, is not permitted. 18.790.060 Violations and Replacement Standards A. Violations. The following constitute a violation of this chapter: 1. Removal of a tree: a. Without a valid tree removal permit; or b. In noncompliance with any condition of approval of a tree removal permit; or c. In noncompliance with any condition of any City permit or development approval; or d. In noncompliance with any other section of this tide. 2. Breach of a condition of any City permit or development approval, which results in damage to a tree or its root system. B. Remedies. If the Director has reason to believe that a violation of this chapter has occurred, then he or she may do any or all of the following: 1. Require the owner of the land on which the tree was located to submit sufficient documentation, which may include a written statement from a qualified arborist or forester, showing that removal of the tree was permitted by this chapter; 2. Pursuant to Section 18.390.050., initiate a hearing on revocation of the tree removal permit and /or any other permit or approval for which this chapter was an approval standard; 3. Issue a stop order pursuant to Section 18.230 of this title; 4. Issue a citation pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Municipal Code; 5. Take any other action allowed by law. C. Fines. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, any party found to be in violation of this chapter pursuant to Section 1.16 of the Municipal Code shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 and shall be required to remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 1. Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section D below; and 2. Payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of any unlawfully removed or DCA2009 -00001 PAGE 7 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - damaged tree, as determined using the most current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal. D. Guidelines for replacement. Replacement of a tree shall take place according to the following guidelines: 1. A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species taking into consideration site characteristics; 2. If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damaged is not reasonably available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value; 3. If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable, the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated caliper size of the tree removed or damaged by the caliper size of the largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the City, either public property or, with the consent of the owner, private property; 4. The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. E. In lieu -of payment. In lieu of tree replacement under Section D above, a party may, with the consent of the Director, elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement. F. Exclusivity. The remedies set out in this section shall not be exclusive. Proposal Discussion The City acknowledges that tree removal is sometimes necessary to accommodate the needs and aspirations of the Community. This acknowledgement is embedded in both the zoning of properties for particular types and intensities of development, as well as in the preamble to the Tree Removal Chapter (18.790.010) itself. At the same time the community has expressed a desire to save viable trees when it is reasonably possible to do so, and has embedded that value in the Tree Removal Chapter and the goals and policies of the recently updated Comprehensive Plan. The proposed changes strike a balance between these two competing demands and are expected to provide the following changes to improve tree preservation and the clarify of the development review process. 1. The purpose statement would be amended to remove any explicit references to sensitive lands. This chapter addresses, through various sections, tree removal on both sensitive and non - sensitive lands and staff wishes to make clear that it is not the intent of this section to protect Goal 5 resources. 2. The definitions section would be amended to better define split trunk trees, a source of much debate during development review. 3. The phrase "protection is preferred over removal wherever possible" would be amended to read "wherever practicable." The intent is to bring the terminology of this chapter closer in line to that of the Comprehensive Plan, which demonstrates a preference for "practicable" over "possible" as it implies situational appropriateness and reasonableness in the face of competing priorities, as opposed to an absolute concept regardless of the other circumstances. 4. The content requirements of the tree plan would require an expansive view and more detail on individual trees, the preservation strategies considered, and the reason for a tree's removal. It would also require that tree plans be signed by an arborist who would self - certify the plan. These requirements have been introduced for two reasons. First, if the plan is going to be self - certifying there must a sufficient level of detail for the strength of the determination to be readily apparent. DCA2009 -00001 PAGE 8 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION Second, to answer the questions the certifying arborist will have to be in closer consultation with the remainder of the design team. 5. Approval criteria have been added to clarify how and when a tree plan may be approved. 6. Subchapter names have been changed to better communicate the structure and requirements of this chapter. SECTION IV. SUMMARY OF REPORT Applicable criteria, findings and conclusions • Tigard Community Development Code (Title 18) o Chapter 18.380 o Chapter 18.390 o Chapter 18.790 • Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies o Chapters 1, 2, and 6 • Applicable Metro Standards o Title 1, 2, and 3 • Statewide Planning Goals o Goals 1, 2, and 6. City Department and outside agency comments SECTION V. APPLICABLE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (TITLE 18) Chapter 18.380: Zoning Map and Text Amendments Chapter 18.380.020 Legislative Amendments to the Title and Map A. Legislative amendments. Legislative zoning map and text amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type IV procedure, as governed by Section 18.309.060G Findings: The proposed text amendments to the Tigard Development Code would be applied to development throughout the City of Tigard; and therefore, the application is being processed as a Type IV procedure, Legislative Amendment, as governed by Section 18.390.060G. Chapter 18.390: Decision - Making Procedures Chapter 18.390.020. Description of Decision - Making Procedures B.4. Type IV Procedure. Type IV procedures apply to legislative matters. Legislative matters involve the creation, revision, or large -scale implementation of public policy. Type IV matters are considered initially by the Planning Commission with final decisions made by the City Council. Findings: The proposed amendments to the Tigard Development Code will be reviewed under the Type IV procedure as detailed in Section 18.390.060.G. In accordance with this section, the amendments will initially be considered by the Planning Commission on March 16, 2009 with City Council making the final decision. Chapter 18.390.060.G. Decision - making considerations. The recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors: 1. The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; 2. Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; 3. Any applicable Metro regulations; 4. Any applicable comprehensive plan policies; and 5. Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. DCA2009 -00001 PAGE 9 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION Findings: As indicated pursuant to the findings and conclusions that address applicable Statewide Planning Goals, Metro Regulations, comprehensive plan policies, and other chapters of the Tigard Development Code, the amendment is consistent with this criterion. Chapter 18.790: Tree Removal Chapter 18.790.010 Purpose B. Purposes. The Purposes of this chapter are to: 1. Encourage the preservation, planting and replacement of trees in the City; 3. Provide for a tree plan for developing properties; Findings: The proposed text amendments to 18.790.030 are consistent with the overall stated purposes of Chapter 18.790, including the encouragement of tree preservation and the provision of a tree plan. CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed text amendments satisfy the applicable review criteria within the Tigard Community Development Code and recommends the Planning Commission forward these proposed amendments to the City Council with a recommendation for adoption. CITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES: A review of the comprehensive plan identified the following relevant policies for the proposed amendments: Policy 1.1.2: The City shall define and publicize an appropriate role for citizens in each phase of the land use planning process. Policy 1.2.1: The City shall ensure pertinent information is readily accessible to the community and presented in such a manner that even technical information is easy to understand. Policy 1.2.6: The City shall provide opportunities for citizens to communicate to Council, boards and commissions, and staff regarding issues that concern them. Finding: Consistent with Chapter 18.390 of the Tigard Development Code (Decision- Making Procedures), two public hearings will be held where public comment will be received by the Planning Commission and City Council. Public notice of these hearings will occur through a combination of direct mailings to affected agencies and interested parties, and publication on the City's website and in a newspaper of general circulation. In addition, the proposed amendments are available for viewing on the City's website or at City Hall. Policy 1.1.3: The City shall establish special citizen advisory boards and committees to provide input to the City Council, Planning Commission, and City staff. Finding: The proposed amendments were presented at a regular meeting of the Tigard Tree Board on December 4, 2008 whereupon board members and attending citizens considered the changes and provided comments. The Tree Board unanimously agreed that the proposed amendment should proceed through the legislative process. Policy 2.1.2: The City's land use regulations, related plans, and implementing actions shall be consistent with and implement its Comprehensive Plan. Finding: As demonstrated in findings above and below, the proposed amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 2.1.14: Applicants shall bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that land use applications are consistent with applicable criteria and requirements of the Development Code, the Comprehensive Plan and, when necessary, those of the state and other agencies. DCA2009 -00001 PAGE 10 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION _ Finding: The existing text of Chapter 18.790 of the Tigard Development Code establishes a stated preference for tree preservation over removal, but does not set forth a procedure or criteria through which an applicant can demonstrate proof that such a preference has been considered and incorporated into the project design. The proposed amendment would resolve this ambiguity by establishing clear and objective submittal requirements and approval criteria that would enable an applicant to demonstrate proof of compliance with the City's stated preference. Policy 2.1.24: The City shall establish design standards to promote quality urban development and to enhance the community's value, livability, and attractiveness. Finding: The proposed amendments to reinforce the City's preference for tree protection over removal, and replacement where removal is necessary, are consistent with this policy. The stated objectives of this chapter are to protect the contribution of existing trees in Tigard, including their contributions to the aesthetic beauty of the community, cleaning of the air, erosion control, maintenance of water quality and the provision of noise barriers. All such services contribute to the community's value, livability, and attractiveness. Policy 2.2.1: The City shall maintain and periodically update policies, regulations and standards to inventory, manage, preserve, mitigate the loss of, and enhance the community's tree and vegetation resources to promote their environmental, aesthetic and economic benefits. Finding: The proposed amendment is an update of Chapter 18.790 whose purpose is to preserve community trees. The update does not change the purpose of the chapter, but addresses known deficiencies in submittal requirements and approval criteria that do not enable an applicant to clearly and sufficiently demonstrate a preference for tree protection in land use applications. The amendments would also specify content requirements for tree mitigation plans that govern the planting of new trees to replace those removed. Policy 2.2.6: The City shall establish and enforce regulations to protect the public's investment in trees and vegetation located in parks, within right -of -ways and on other public lands and easements. Finding: The proposed amendments would require the inclusion of trees within 25 feet of the affected parcel, and not just those within the parcel boundaries. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure the preservation of off -site trees, where practicable. Such offsite trees could include, where applicable, those located in public right of ways, open spaces, and other public lands. Policy 2.3.1: The City shall develop and implement standards and procedures designed to minimize the reduction of existing tree cover, with priority going to native trees and non - native varietals that are long lived and /or provide a broad canopy spread. Finding: The proposed amendment is consistent with this policy as it will clarify and strengthen the effectiveness of an existing chapter of the development code whose purpose is to minimize tree removal as a result of a development application. Policy 2.3.6: The City shall, in order to preserve existing trees and ensure new trees will thrive, allow and encourage flexibility in site design through all aspects of development review. Finding: The proposed amendment is consistent with this policy in that it will require the applicant to consider and address the practicability of flexible design approaches including the use of lot size averaging and /or the reduction of lot width or depth when tree removal is a possibility. Policy 6.1.6: The City shall encourage the maintenance and improvement of open spaces, natural resources, and the City's tree canopy to sustain positive contributions to air quality. Finding: The proposed amendment is consistent with this policy as it will clarify and strengthen the effectiveness of an existing chapter of the development code whose purpose is to minimize tree removal as a result of a development application. DCA2009 -00001 PAGE 11 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION _. Policy 6.2.3: The City shall encourage the use of low- impact development practices that reduce stormwater impacts from new and existing development. Finding: The text amendments would require an applicant to demonstrate in both narrative and plan form that low impact development practices had been considered and incorporated into the tree plan, where practicable. These techniques are set forth in section 18.790.030.B.5(a) through (f) of the proposed text amendments. Policy 6.2.4: The City shall protect, restore, and enhance, to the extent practical, the natural functions of stream corridors, trees, and water resources for their positive contributions to water quality. Policy 6.2.5: The City shall require measures to minimize erosion and storm run -off from development sites during and after construction. Finding: The proposed amendments will allow the City and applicant to more clearly and efficiently protect and restore the natural functions of trees, to the extent practicable. Trees perform a variety of natural functions, including the reduction of erosion and the absorption of storm water, and the proposed amendments will more effectively preserve and /or replace their natural functions to the extent practicable. CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed amendment satisfies the applicable policies contained in the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan. APPLICABLE METRO REGULATIONS: Metro Urban Growth Management Plan Title 1— Requirements for Housing and Employment Finding: This section of the Functional Plan facilitates efficient use of land within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Each city and county has determined its capacity for providing housing and employment that serves as their baseline and if a city or county chooses to reduce capacity in one location, it must transfer that capacity to another location. Cities and counties must report changes in capacity annually to Metro. The amendments will not reduce the number of dwelling units or reduce employment capacity, they will only ensure that the minimum number: of trees are removed during construction. Therefore, this text amendment does not reduce the City's housing and employment capacity. Title 2 — Regional Parking Policy Finding: The Metro 2040 Growth Concept calls for more compact development to encourage the efficient use of land, promote a higher proportion of non - automobile trips, and protect air quality. In addition, the federally mandated air quality plan adopted by the state relies on the 2040 Growth Concept fully achieving its transportation objectives. This title establishes regionwide parking policies that set the minimum and maximum number of parking spaces that can be required by local governments for certain types of new development. By not creating an over supply of parking, urban land can be used most efficiently. The proposed amendments will ensure that land is used for the preservation of existing trees rather than extra parking spaces, where practicable and consistent with minimum parking requirements. Title 3 — Water Quality Finding: The purpose of Title 3 is to protect the region's health and public safety by reducing flood and landslide hazards, controlling soil erosion and reducing pollution of the region's waterways. Title 3 specifically implements the Oregon Statewide Land Use Goals 6 and 7 by protecting streams, rivers, wetlands and DCA2009 -00001 PAGE 12 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION S floodplains by avoiding, limiting or mitigating the impact on these areas from development. The proposed amendments are consistent with Tide 3 in that it will ensure that only the minimum number of trees are removed during development, wherever they occur within City limits, and with that will occur a reduction in erosion and other water quality and stormwater management benefits whether inside the boundaries or upland of water resources. CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed amendment satisfies the applicable Metro regulations. THE STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES ADOPTED UNDER OREGON REVISED STATUTES CHAPTER 197 Forty -five day advance notice was provided to DLCD on January 30, 2009, 45 days prior to the first scheduled public hearing as required. In addition, the Tigard Development Code and Comprehensive Plan have been acknowledged by DLCD. The following are the applicable Statewide Planning Goals that are applicable to this proposal: Statewide Planning Goal 1— Citizen Involvement: This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive Plans and changes to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents. Finding: This goal has been met by complying with notice and hearing requirements set forth in the Tigard Development Code. A minimum of two public hearings will be held, first the Planning Commission followed by a final decision by the City Council. Public notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was sent to the interested parties list and published in the March 2, 2009 issue of The Oregonian (in accordance with Tigard Development Code Chapter 18.390). Notice will be published again prior to the City Council public hearing. - The notices invite public input and included the phone number of a contact person to answer questions. The notice also included the address of the City's webpage where the entire draft of the text changes could be viewed. Statewide Planning Goal 2 — Land Use Planning: This goal outlines the land use planning process and policy framework. The Comprehensive Plan was acknowledged by DLCD as being consistent with the statewide planning goals. Findings: The proposed amendment to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan is being processed as a Type IV procedure, which requires any applicable statewide planning goals, federal or state statutes or regulations, Metro regulations, comprehensive plan policies, and City's implementing ordinances, be addressed as part of the decision - making process. Notice was provided to DLCD 45 days prior to the first scheduled public hearing as required. All applicable review criteria have been addressed within this staff report; therefore, the requirements of Goal 2 have been met. Statewide Planning Goal 6: Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water, and land resources of the state. Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with this goal as the proposed changes are intended to protect water quality and other natural functions of existing or replacement trees. By clarifying submittal requirements, including the use of low impact development techniques, the City will minimize impacts from future development. CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goals. DCA2009 -00001 PAGE 13 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SECTION VI. ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard's Building Division, Engineering Division, Current Planning Division, and Public Works Department has had an opportunity to review this proposal and did not respond. CONCLUSION: Based on no response from City staff, staff finds the proposed amendment does not interfere with the best interests of the City. SECTION VII. OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS The following agencies /jurisdictions had an opportunity to review this proposal and did not respond: City of Durham City of Beaverton City of King City City of Lake Oswego City of Portland City of Tualatin Washington County, Department of Land Use and Transportation Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue Metro Land Use and Planning Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development Oregon Department of Transportation Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife The following agencies /jurisdictions had an opportunity to review this proposal and had the following comments: Clean Water Services: Recommended the inclusion of any and all relevant provisions of the current intergovernmental agreement between the City of Tigard and Clean Water Services, and the relevant provisions of the current Design and Construction Standards. Findings: The proposed amendments do not conflict with the current intergovernmental agreement or the current Design and Construction standards. CONCLUSION: Staff finds the proposed amendment meets all requirements of these agencies and does not interfere with the best interests of the City. SECTION VIII. CONCLUSION The proposed changes comply with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals, Metro regulations, the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Tree Removal Chapter Amendment to the Tigard City Council as determined through the public hearing process. DCA2009 -00001 PAGE 14 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION ATTACHMENTS: 1. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 18.790 THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE. 2. LETTER FROM CLEAN WATER SERVICES March 9, 2009 PREPARED BY: John Floyd DATE Associate Planner March 9, 2009 APPROVED BY: Ron Bunch DATE Community Development Director DCA2009 -00001 PAGE 15 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION • Agenda Item # / Meeting Date April 21, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Draft Urbanization Forum Resolution for Participating Jurisdictions, Council Goal No. 1 -d • t Prepared By: Ron Bunch Dept Head Approval: "''' City Mgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Consideration of draft Urbanization Forum Resolution. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Review draft Urbanization Forum Resolution and staff memo and provide direction to staff for subsequent , communication to Washington County and Urbanization Forum participants. FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The City has received from Washington County text of a draft resolution (Attachment 1) that proposes actions and agreements to implement what it considers the recommendations of the Urbanization Forum. The County is requesting that Tigard and other Forum participants adopt the resolution. The resolution proposes that jurisdictions involved in the Urbanization Forum shall: 1. Support the work and process of the Urbanization Forum; 2. Execute amendments to Urban Planning Area Agreements (UPAAs) and pending Urban Service Area Agreements (USAAs) to provide that all Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) amendments during and after 2010 be governed and urbanized by the interested cities; 3. Support policies and actions to ensure roads which are part of the Countywide Road System remain under the jurisdiction of the County when future UGB lands are annexed to cities. Other roads may be transferred to the City jurisdiction; 4. Urge Metro to expand the UGB only in areas contiguous to cities; 5. Seek legislation or other means to include future UGB areas in cities if Metro expands the UGB to areas not contiguous to city boundaries; 6. Identify and develop financial tools and enabling legislation to provide urban services to existing unincorporated urban areas if interested cities do not pursue annexation; and 7. Commit to work with Washington County and others on the needs of current and future urbanized Washington County. Attachment 2 is a memorandum from staff that provides an analysis of the County's proposal and recommends alternatives for Council's consideration. • L \CDADM \RON \City Council Material \4-21 -09 Draft Urbanization Forum Resolution AIS.doc 1 OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED • Not consider alternatives to the County's proposal and indicate the City's willingness to sign. • Identify other amendments in addition or to replace staff's recommendations for communication to the County and other Urbanization Forum participants. CITY COUNCIL GOALS 1. Implement the Comprehensive Plan — develop a 50 year aspirational goal in support of the urban /rural reserves effort. ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Text of Draft Urbanization Forum Resolution 2. Staff memo FISCAL NOTES N/A • I: \CDADM \RON \City Council Material \421 -09 Draft Urbanization Forum Resolution AIS.doc 2 Attachment 1 Text of Draft Washington County Urbanization Forum Resolution April 6, 2009 Resolution for Jurisdictions The following Resolutions will be presented for discussion and potential adoption by each jurisdiction participating in the Urbanization Forum. The Resolutions will be accompanied by this summary, any additional commentary provided by the Steering Committee and, if available, draft amendments to Urban Planning Area and SB 122 agreements. The Steering Committee will make the Facilitator and Steering Committee members available to meet as requested with Council, Board and Commission members and staff of each jurisdiction to discuss the process, work and recommendations of the Urbanization Forum, including the Resolutions. Whereas, in 2008 the Cities of Washington County including mayors and managers, Board of Commissioners of Washington County and managers, the largest Service Districts of Washington County including chief executive officers and board chairs (TVF &R; THPRD; TVWD; CWS), and Washington County Sheriff convened a public Washington County Urbanization Forum and held four (4) public Urbanization Forum meetings in 2008 to discuss key urbanization issues, including listening to public comments on such issues; Whereas, during Urbanization Forum discussion the participants explored issues and conditions pertaining to forming consensus policies for the governance and management of: (1) existing unincorporated urbanized areas in the County that contain approximately 200,000 residents; and, (2) areas added to the regional UGB in the County for future urban development and growth in the County, and imminent growth management issues confronting all Urbanization Forum participants as forecasted population growth in Washington County takes shape; Whereas, Washington County citizens and civic organizations participated in the Urbanization Forum, principally through CPO leadership, in public large group and small group meetings held in April, June, October, November and December of 2008; Whereas, it was determined during Urbanization Forum discussions that the following seven (7) urban unincorporated areas within the existing UGB required an area -by -area approach to determine if any changes are appropriate or desired in current service and governance solutions, and separate area -by -area discussions were conducted in each of these areas: (1) Cedar Hills /Raleigh Hills /West Slope /Garden Home; (2) Bethany /Rock Creek/North Bethany; (3) Cedar Mill; (4) Bull Mt /Areas 63 &64; (5) Metzger; (6) Reedville; and (7) Aloha; • Whereas, it was also determined in Urbanization Forum discussions that resolution of matters of urbanization governance and management of areas added to the Urban Growth Boundary.in Washington County by Metro requires consensus among the Urbanization Forum participants and Metro on a separate urbanization policy prepared by the Urbanization Forum for these areas; Whereas, the Urbanization Forum used a Steering Committee, a working group and a series of public meetings to formulate and draft proposed policies pertaining to future governance and urbanization within existing unincorporated urban areas and areas outside the UGB that are added to the UGB by Metro; Whereas, Urbanization Forum participants agree that, while an urbanization policy that assigns to cities the governance and management of new as -yet undeveloped areas added to the UGB engenders different urbanization issues and, accordingly, should be considered distinct from an urbanization policy for existing unincorporated urban areas not likely to become part of a city in the foreseeable future and already governed by Washington County, both urbanization policies are connected in terms of the quality and delivery of public services to such areas by their service providers and governing institutions, and the quality of urban life and amenities of residents and communities in both areas; and Whereas, future actions of the jurisdictions within Washington County and Metro will be well served by each jurisdiction considering and adopting the consensus recommendations of the Urbanization Forum to serve as guideposts for decisions of the individual jurisdictions on matters of concern to the Urbanization Forum; Now, Therefore, Be it Resolved, the governing body of , together with the Cities, County and Service Districts which participated in the Urbanization Forum (Cities of Beaverton, Cornelius, Forest Grove, Hillsboro, King City, North Plains, Sherwood, Tigard and Tualatin; Washington County; CWS, THPRD, TVF &R; TVW), hereby adopts this proposed Urbanization Forum Resolution and hereby commits to undertake and complete the specific actions listed below at the earliest practicable time: (1) We expressly recognize and support the process and work of the Urbanization Forum; (2) We will join fellow Jurisdictions that participated in the Urbanization Forum in preparing and executing amendments by December 2009 to Urban Planning Area Agreements ( "UPAA's ") and /or executed and pending Urban Service Agreements ( "SB 122 Agreements"), as deemed necessary and appropriate by its counsel, to provide that all future additions to the applicable Urban Growth Boundary in Washington County during and after 2010 must be governed and urbanized by the interested City in the County . Urbanized means land use decision making authority. The decision as to how urban services will be delivered shall be determined by the interested City in consultation with area service providers in accordance with existing law and applicable agreements . "Interested" includes but is not limited to designations under SB 122 Agreements; • • (3) In conjunction with paragraph (2) we will join fellow Jurisdictions that participated in the Urbanization Forum in commonly supporting actions as appropriate to abide by a policy which ensures jurisdiction of roadways which are deemed by the County to be part of the county -wide road system, shall be under the jurisdiction of Washington County. Concurrent with annexation, the relevant City shall request all other roads that are not part of the Countywide Road System be transferred and the County shall transfer these roads; (4) We will join fellow Jurisdictions that participated in the Urbanization Forum in commonly urging Metro to expand the existing Urban Growth Boundary only to such areas as are contiguous to incorporated areas of Washington County; (5) While it is the high priority of Urbanization Forum participants that UGB expansion by Metro in Washington County be contiguous to a governing City, in the event the Urban Growth Boundary in Washington .County is expanded to include areas non - contiguous to an incorporated area, we will work with fellow Jurisdictions that participated in the Urbanization Forum, Metro and other interested entities to seek legislation or other enabling authority, as may be needed, to enable the inclusion of such areas outside the existing Urban Growth Boundary within the interested City; (6) With respect to those existing areas of urban unincorporated Washington County in which the interested Cities do not pursue annexation activities such that these areas remain within the governance of Washington County, we will join fellow Jurisdictions that participated in the Urbanization Forum in identifying and developing financial tools for Washington County, and legislation attendant thereto, to provide urban services as needed to such areas while they remain outside the governance of Cities; and (7) We will continue to work with fellow jurisdictions in Washington County and the public through the Urbanization Forum and /or other appropriate mechanisms to explore and discuss on a continuing basis the needs of current and future urbanized Washington County; and Be It Finally Resolved, that a copy of this Resolution adopted this day of 2009, be hereby transmitted to all jurisdictions who participated as members of the Washington County Urbanization Forum, Metro, the Washington County CPO's, and other interested civic and community organizations. • ATTACHMENT 2 11, : . si City of Tigard TIGARD Memorandum To: Mayor Dirksen and Members of the City Council From: Ron Bunch, Community Development Director r-1,6_, Re: Urbanization Forum Resolution for Jurisdictions Date: April 6, 2009 INTRODUCTION The City has received from Washington County text of a draft resolution (Attachment 1) that proposes actions and agreements to implement what it considers the recommendations of the Urbanization Forum. The County is requesting that Tigard and other Forum participants adopt the resolution The following summarizes the resolution's proposals and possible alternatives that Council may wish staff to further develop for future communication to the County. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The "Whereas" portion of the draft resolution recounts the process and intent of the Urbanization Forum. However, staff is concerned that important issues brought up by cities have been left out. Also, the last "Whereas" on page 2 emphasizes that adopting the consensus recommendations of the Urbanization Forum will only serve as guideposts for future decisions of individual jurisdictions. The resolution, if it is to be effective, should have some binding authority on the signatories. This concern is based on the cities' experience with the existing SB122 agreements. Staff also recommends that the resolution acknowledge cities' concerns that the past pattern of unincorporated urban development has resulted in the prospect of financial and infrastructure funding problems for both county and municipal governments. These problems, if not addressed, could affect the region's quality of life and economic prospects. Furthermore, during the Urbanization Forum, the cities emphasized that 1) municipal governments are the most efficient and effective providers of general governance and municipal services; 2) that Washington County is an effective provider of state mandated services appropriate for a large geographic area and, 3) the existing large service districts are important providers of sanitary sewer, water, and Park and Recreation services based on particular economies of scale. It is felt that these facts should be emphasized in the "whereas" preamble to emphasize issues important to cities. The Tigard City Council supports the concept that future urban development should be part of an incorporated municipality whether it is an existing city or one that is yet to be incorporated. However, the I: \CDADM \RON \City Council Material \421 -09 Urbanization Forum Resolution Attachment 2 Rev. 410.docx 1 proposed resolution takes a narrower approach and is worded to limit the inclusion of new urban areas into existing cities. Exchanging the word "city" throughout the resolution with the words "municipal government" along with minor rephrasing of some clauses would address this. The "Therefore(s)" of the resolution propose that jurisdictions involved in the Urbanization Forum shall: 1. Support the work and process of the Urbanization Forum; 2. Execute amendments to Urban Planning Area Agreements (UPAAs) and pending Urban Service Area Agreements (USAAs) to provide that all Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) amendments during and after 2010 be governed and urbanized by the interested cities; 3. Support policies and actions to ensure roads which are part of the Countywide Road System remain under the jurisdiction of the County when future UGB lands are annexed to cities. Other roads may be transferred to the City jurisdiction; 4. Urge Metro to expand the UGB only in areas contiguous to cities; 5. Seek legislation or other means to include future UGB areas in cities if Metro expands the UGB to areas not contiguous to city boundaries; 6. Identify and develop financial tools and enabling legislation to provide urban services to existing unincorporated urban areas if interested cities do not pursue annexation; 7. Commit to work with Washington County and others on the needs of current and future urbanized Washington County. The above provision pertaining to jurisdiction of County Roads brought into cities is concerning. First, the County desires to retain control of "major roads." Secondly, all other County roads would be transferred to cities. From the City's perspective, all urban roads, with perhaps the exception of major state facilities, should ideally be under jurisdiction of municipalities. However, any County road transferred to a city should either be improved to city standards, or guaranteed funding support for future improvements. Staff has significant concerns with language that would commit Tigard, other cities, and service districts to work with the County to identify and develop financial tools and legislation to allow the provision of urban services to existing unincorporated areas. Instead, the County's first priority should be the transition of urban unincorporated areas to existing and contiguous cities. This requires the County to actively promote annexation of these areas. A more appropriate public -policy approach, from the municipal perspective, would be for the County and cities to develop ways to bring existing unincorporated urban infrastructure up to city standards concurrent with annexation. Finally, the agreement ignores the situation of Areas 63 and 64 where Tigard is the logical provider of services but these lands, already within the urban growth boundary, cannot be urbanized because they are not contiguous to the City. The proposed resolution should recognize that there are unique circumstances that will require County support and participation to craft solutions; in this case support of "cherry stem" annexation. I: \CDADM \RON \City Council Material \421 -09 Urbanization Forum Resolution Attachment 2 Rev, 4-10.docz 2 Agenda Item # Meeting Date April 21, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Briefing on Designation of Hwy 99W as a Regional Mobility Corridor, Council Goal #1 Prepared By: Mike McCarthy Dept Head Approval: t City Mgr Approval: ( J ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL This is a briefing for Council on the re- designation (by Metro and ODOT) of Highway 99W as a Regional Mobility Corridor, and a brief discussion of the Tigard streets to be considered as feeder routes bringing traffic to the mobility corridors. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Support the designation of Hwy 99W as a mobility corridor. Support the study of city arterials and McDonald Street and Bonita Road as key routes bringing traffic to and from the mobility corridors. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY As part of the Regional Transportation Plan effort, Metro and ODOT designated 23 Regional Mobility Corridors describing key transportation needs in the Portland Metropolitan Area. Existing corridors affecting Tigard include: Corridor 2: Central City (Portland) to Tigard - essentially follows I -5 from Portland to Hwy 217 Corridor 3: Tigard to Wilsonville - essentially follows I -5 from Tigard to the south end of the Metro area Corridor 19: Beaverton to Tigard - essentially follows Hwy 217 Corridor 20 followed Hwy 99W from the southwestern edge of the Metro area to near Sherwood, and then followed the potential I -5 /Hwy 99W connector to 1 -5 near Tualatin. However, with the change in direction of the I -5 /Hwy 99W planning effort, there would not be a major road connecting Hwy 99W to I -5. This would leave Hwy 99W as the major road serving this transportation need, and Hwy 99W would remain as the designated Statewide Highway and Oregon Freight Route. Because of these changes, Metro and ODOT figure it makes sense to redesignate Hwy 99W as the 'mainline' of Corridor 20. In staffs opinion, this change fits the function of Hwy 99W and is appropriate for its current and future use. Also, it is consistent with future high capacity transit on the highway. This Mobility Corridor designation would help give Hwy 99W more priority for possible regional and state funding for improvements such as Access Management implementation. It would also help efforts to pursue alternative modes (such as High Capacity Transit) along or roughly parallel to Hwy 99W, and efforts toward more efficient land use in the l: \LRPLN \Council Materials \ 2009 \ 421-09 AIS 99W Mobility Corridor.docx 1 corridor, such as a Transportation and Growth Management grant to study and develop plans for efficient land use in the corridor. ODOT would put more priority on moving traffic on Hwy 99W, which could help traffic flow and also improve the possibility of funding. However, with more regional and state importance attached to Hwy 99W, there is the potential of ODOT being less flexible pertaining to land use and engineering matters. As part of this Mobility Corridor effort, Metro is drafting an 'atlas' for each corridor describing key transportation and land use issues in each corridor. A draft was distributed at JPACT. These atlases provide an excellent report of corridor performance in many key transportation parameters, and typically include the 'mainline' of the corridor, as well as the key city arterials that bring traffic to the corridor or provide alternate routes. This is a large document, but staff can provide Council copies, if desired. The atlas describes traffic flow and other transportation options on the 'mainline' of each Mobility Corridor and on arterials such as Scholls Ferry Road, Hall Blvd, Greenburg Road, 72n Avenue, Gaarde Street, Beef Bend Road, Upper Boones Ferry Road, and Durham Road that bring traffic to the corridor or provide alternate routes. McDonald Street and Bonita Road also serve this arterial function. Staff believes it is appropriate for McDonald and Bonita to be included in this study even though they are currently designated as collectors. As part of Tigard's Transportation System Plan, Tigard will have the opportunity to revise the designated classification of McDonald and Bonita to more closely match their function as arterials. As Metro is moving towards limiting regional street project funding to arterials only, this redesignation would allow staff to pursue funding for facilities (such as sidewalks and mitigating the negative effects of traffic flow) along McDonald Street and Bonita Road. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Council could object to the designation of Hwy 99W as a Mobility Corridor. Council could object to inclusion of McDonald Street and Bonita Road in this study. CITY COUNCIL GOALS Goal No. 1: Implement Comprehensive Plan c. Continue to lobby for light rail in 99W corridor. 5 Year Goal: Begin 99W access management implementation. Long Term Goals: • Pursue opportunities to reduce traffic congestion in Tigard • Seek to improve Hwy 99W corridor (land use, alternative routes, traffic, etc.) ATTACHMENT LIST N/A FISCAL NOTES There would be no direct cost to Tigard This may help Tigard obtain grant funding for improvements in this corridor, which may necessitate a local match. I: \LRPI,N \Council Materials \2009 \421 -09 AIS 99W Mobility Corridor.docx 2 . , gecei'ved 7 r li ..c Li/ ,.1/ A2 a a 1 : , -,, CIIIIP - • 44. 1 ....., N ' '7 ' '. . LAIR‘<C2 . C ... . - 1 , . ** 0 if it g.sWor, . 4,.. .. ....____t 1 . 4 --- , ?4:-,J ' . ri .,, ..., "4.6" - , 1 . 111111P P r i nu pa I 4 il l .111010,..-- :.: 11111111-gm4 .... Principal 4 -6 1......2 --, _ - h NA,. ,,.. 40,..1 - - " . , - , _ -t. . C.J Minor artoi ' '' • ' 'i ..." ''' . ..t. ' 1 ' ,, -c..,c1 ,' '.-. ruttt- - _, , Vi la : e TC :.' 7" ',, Ill - • 0/5"-T - LL Rural ariet , —. -,- ,.- 1 1, , . 1 "J ..,, ., ; _ .., r1 ,..., . ' — (farm to.ma .; INF Light rail 4. 1- . , ti..izt . - .. r , ..... .,, =.,........., , Streetcar 11: ',1', _ • 1 , , , :., - ... I "-.•.. Freight ra .":----,,,,,,, ....,)/ 7' County lini i J,-,, ..ii I _ .,. ,.,(1,g,.., State of Oregon, Metm Aegtonar Atlas of Mobility Corrid A foundation for building an integrated mobility strategy in the Portland metropolitan region April 2009, Draft 1.0 Metro 1 People places. Open spaces. Metro is the federally mandated metropolitan planning organization designated by the governor to develop an overall transportation plan and to allocate federal funds for the region. The Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) is a 17- member committee that provides a forum for elected officials and representatives of agencies involved in transportation to evaluate transportation needs in the region and to make recommendations to the Metro Council. The established decision - making process assures a well - balanced regional transportation system and involves local elected officials directly in decisions that help the Metro Council develop regional transportation policies, including allocating federal transportation funds. NONDISCRIMINATION NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC Metro hereby gives public notice that it is the policy of the Metro Council to assure full compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice and related statutes and regulations in all programs and activities. Title VI requires that no person in the United States of America shall, on the grounds of race, color, sex, or national origin, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which Metro receives federal financial assistance. Any person who believes they have been aggrieved by an unlawful discriminatory practice under Title VI has a right to file a formal complaint with Metro. Any such complaint must be in writing and filed with the Metro's Title VI Coordinator within one hundred eighty (180) days following the date of the alleged discriminatory occurrence. For more information, or to obtain a Title VI Discrimination Complaint Form, see the web site at wwworegonmetro.gov or call 503- 797 - 1536. . , A tlas of Mobility C A foundation for building an integrated mobility strategy in the Portland metropolitan region April 2009, Draft 1.0 ic Metro 1 People places. Open spaces. Table of contents page number c rts Corridor atlas index map iii Introduction v a Definition of terms vi 3 3 3 r o v ." a How to use this atlas vi v r = 1 1. z Corridor 1 Portland Central City to Vancouver 1 • • • • Corridor 2 Portland Central City to Tualatin 9 • • Corridor 3 Tualatin to Wilsonville 17 • • • Corridor 4 Portland Central City Loop 25 • • • • • Corridor 5 Portland Central City to Gateway 33 • • • Corridor 6 Gateway to Troutdale/Wood Village /Fairview 41 • • • • Corridor 7 Tualatin to Oregon City 49 • Corridor 8 Oregon City to Gateway 57 • • • • Corridor 9 Gateway to Clark County 65 • • • Corridor 10 Portland Central City to Milwaukie 73 • • • Corridor 11 Milwaukie to Clackamas 81 • • • Corridor 12 Clackamas to Rock Creek Junction (Hwy 224) 89 • Corridor 13 Rock Creek Junction (Hwy 224) to US 26 97 • Corridor 14 Oregon City to Willamette Valley 105 • Corridor 15 Troutdale/Wood Village /Fairview to Damascus 113 • Corridor 16 Rivergate to Interstate 5 121 • • • Corridor 17 Interstate 5 to Columbia South Shore 129 • • • • Corridor 18 Central City to Columbia County 137 • • Corridor 19 Beaverton to Tigard 145 • • • • Corridor 20 Tualatin to Sherwood and Sherwood to Newberg 153 • • Corridor 21 Portland Central City to Hwy 217 161 • • • Corridor 22 Hwy 217 to North Plains 169 • • Corridor 23 Forest Grove to US 26 177 • • Corridor 24 Beaverton to Forest Grove Under development ii Mobility corridor atlas Corridor atlas index map Columbia County Rivergate Vancouver Clark County 16 8 17 North 1 9 P 23 22 Gresham Forest Grove * ; Hillsboro * Beaverton Gateway Fairview 24 24 21 4 5 6 Wood Village ' P ortland Troutdale C C 19 8 15 Tigard ukee 1 1 Clackamas 12 Happy Valley 13 Damascus 2 8 S 20 Tualatin 7 Oregon City erg . 3 14 Wilsonville I Valley * Corridor 24 - Beaverton to Forest Grove is under development Draft 1.0 iii INTRODUCTION The communities of the Portland metropolitan region take a collaborative approach to planning that helps make our region one of the most livable in the country. Over the last two decades of the 20th Century, we worked together to address the challenges to metropolitan mobility brought about by exceedingly rapid population growth. With the dawn of the 21st Century came a new set of challenges. Although population growth has slowed, it remains steady. In addition, climate change, rising energy costs, aging infrastructure, and other economic concerns demand that our region again proactively plan to preserve metropolitan mobility. The goal is to provide the goods and services that people need and protect what they value —a strong economy, a healthy environment, and livable communities. Achieving these goals requires an integrated approach to metropolitan mobility. As part of the first phase of the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the mobility corridor concept emerged as a new way to think about an integrated transportation system. This concept focuses on the region's network of freeways and highways and includes parallel networks of arterial streets, regional multi -use paths, high capacity transit and frequent bus service. The function of this network of integrated transportation corridors is metropolitan mobility – moving people and goods between different parts of the region and, in some corridors, connecting the region with the rest of the state and beyond. These transportation corridors also have a significant influence on the development and function of the land uses they serve. Purpose of the mobility corridor atlas In the first phase of the RTP update, regional partners identified 23 mobility corridors across the region. The next step is to better understand the unique land use and transportation characteristics of each corridor. The mobility atlas, the first of its kind created for this region, was conceived as a way to visually present current land use and multi -modal transportation data for each of the region's major travel corridors. It is designed primarily to help planners and decision - makers understand existing system conditions, identify needs and prioritize mobility investments. Cities and counties will find the atlas useful when updating their transportation system plans after the RTP update. In addition, freight movers, community development interests and members of the interested public will benefit from a better understanding of the region's transportation system. For each corridor, the atlas provides a general overview that includes location in the region, primary transportation facilities and land use patterns, and an assessment of gaps and deficiencies by travel mode. This information will be used to help identify the most cost - effective strategies and investment priorities for each corridor and serve as a framework for monitoring how well different strategies are working in each corridor over time. The atlas also provides for the comparison of data between corridors and the ability to merge multiple corridors for analysis of broader travel areas . Content of the mobility corridor atlas This mobility atlas presents a series of maps for each corridor showing its geographic location, transportation facilities, adjacent land use patterns, and operational attributes. The maps are accompanied by short explanatory narratives, data tables and "quick facts." This atlas is draft 1.0; it will receive periodic corrections and updates as new information emerges or inaccuracies surface. Mobility corridor atlas 1 Introduction Draft 1.0 DEFINITION OF TERMS Mobility means the movement of people, freight, goods and services by any travel mode. Mobility corridor means a segment of the regional network of freeways and highways that also has parallel facilities including arterial and collector streets, high capacity and regional transit routes, and regional multi -use paths. High capacity transit means all public mass transit that moves in a dedicated right of way or designated lane and operates with a minimum of stops. Examples include commuter rail, light rail, bus rapid transit, and some express bus routes. Level of service (LOS) is a tool for evaluating system performance and identifying deficiencies for roadways, transit and other motorized and non - motorized modes of travel. It describes conditions in terms of speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, and traffic interruptions. LOS C — stable flow with delays, less freedom to maneuver LOS D — high density but stable flow LOS E — operating conditions at or near capacity, unstable flow LOS F — forced flow, breakdown conditions LOS F+ — severe congestion, demand exceeds capacity. 2040 target areas are identified in the 2040 Growth Concepts as priorities for the transportation system to support growth. These 2040 target areas include central city, regional centers, industrial areas, freight and passenger inter -modal facilities, employment areas, town centers, station communities, corridors, and main streets. HOW TO USE THIS ATLAS The following diagrams are included to serve as a guide to understanding the maps and charts in the mobility atlas. Each chapter contains the .camp elements that have been modeled to provide content specific to the corridor. This identifies the beginning c,a ..,, r o This map shows the Regional -i C orti ` I section of a specific transportation Transportation Plan (RTP) iiiPP• corridor. The region has been functional classifications for the ill, VW II I kb- — - ,'� divided into 23 different mobility m Street and Throughway System. !UN 4 III � , � -" corridors. _ , _= This is the legend for the Regional S _ Transportation Plan Street and f �_ �; Throughway System map. Tkr.arrraln TnwrJak ruMhn n.rdin Fim xrnanl.AanJ ALi>, Adrr rnA lM lwnw4rnyrvlrm.mrAr M1nI.rN lmen+rnrvl.l,�.xr.rMr.AnMror t.np.AY.urr l4nd.\'e.rnYf..tntMpnaW p.m M.,rd.TM AIAC due L,v u.rmn rwn4Y ra9...... rr.M1Nnsl.nrrrd.n.andn..i *. rry.rvl.nrn. TYwn,r -v.w rn•d .r,r.iLw W. rvny ryrrl4l.nrr:rl n.J. rW sne rn•li>J p.J. rNn Jr Ae amiYn aA rn I.o1.Mrvr�n.ILnnn. r ►4al ur.n m.•wY n urna9. d..auu,wwvF iw..M tr.v d Jsd.rl.rraw � O a w. The Zoning map shows the zoning A' `r W. """`r : '' "' designation boundaries based on SIMI 04.4* .R, These quick facts represent a variety - ^4. - -- `,; local zoning ordinances. It also ""°"' .,..d shows the extent of the mobility r• ° ' of data that has been aggregated r y 7' ty based upon the Corridor Analysis hrI corridor. 773 la. Zone for the specific corridor. L ■ m This chart reflects the percentages ■ ' ' " .9. of zoning designations within the VA M = - --- mobility corridor. Vi Mobility corridor atlas I Introduction The Motor vehicle travel map shows the modeled p.m. 2 -hour p eak motor vehicle volumes and IMO, vel ;ho,r u,•rk the volume -to- capacity ratio CD for select cutlines on the main *• . throughway and parallel arterials. The symbol orientation reflects , � '� s"°"�'�" ` . the direction of travel while the '!' +_._. _._ .. °-•"` ! 4. " ` The Motor vehicle facility symbol size indicates the volume '`' performance chart reflects the and the symbol color shows the 4 m ` CD ' modeled average speed, level volume -to- capacity ratio. m of congestion and the relative A - t °� °"'�' volumes for the main throughway ..I.i..rMW.,,,, III Mow winrk f«rvl my old A+rl a,wrprc It II •.Aurw.+rul wu,«.r:vnmrM mmlFnryhrry +rd l +1 and parallel arterials in the map ' •w r '" rxvlkl vnvri+l n.ula in rk:M +n nm. p+k lnaN Rrwd This legend shows the categories b «nn t hi yMu r.Auns M w.« •r hl a k n+. `°°'" ^R4 K .m °w•vmJ ^mw. < "' rvm•R +k.I^ above. The size of the symbols m O. SAW ••• rM.".AvxW Jira.nm, N'I lldt+, \I.l.Wvn..4 ln.nvw for the modeled p.m. 2 -hour peak "°' ;°� m '" •' indicates the volume at the r � «ar i�!eS. r. by I°I ^.lM6wrW . \nRUr 0.+r e -t°en � 0 nM12Fha.+swrJU,heklnf lrxenAarrR.Slmwer+« ... -.. .... _.- narfi. n,.el• Jhn l..+iu,l "r.m. !.M1mnn�k nrly „u motor vehicle volumes and the " .. „.,.F. "F.�`r.,.,,,F�. r,.,,Fnrr+,drv�ud. corridor's most congested cutline 3 Ma« v NJtle IecNry perl°RUpe volume-to-capacity ratio in the and the position on the chart ma above. `"" "”. 0 indicates the level of congestion . U and average speed. Average speed The main throughway and parallel - . m is calculated along the length of Arterials are color -coded to match >< - -- the colored facility on the map. the map above and the chart on = ^ ” : the right. The size of the circles if The circles are color -coded to match the relative volume at the match the main throughway most congested cutline. and parallel arterials in the map above. The Level of service map shows the modeled volume -to- capacity LEv& of SNVke(vulurnePapaPty) CIn hour peak ratio on collector -level and above roads in the 2 hour p.m. peak s � - travel period. The width of the 1 iii. - link indicates volume and the - El , "f"' r ,31 j i color reflects the Level of Service. , ° F ' ■ ;i - !eT - _.1 i l (T____ Freeway interchanges are shown 1 .. t lir with a 1/2 mile buffer. i 1*� t ,' The Level of service map shows k...l afw.y. lwul./•mve rrup JhIAvS mJur« rn.+rrny r+ri. w« ,,.. , o wJam m lm�•tin• ^• ^.. �!� rnw. the modeled volume -to- capacity Thi legend shows the regional •10.'"" In..aI l ,k««,„• mll bw nol r.1.1 ..i.%l.R.* q J^k•km,••k,rM1• "hkmd�, �r� th. ° R repk..+l mn,^ .ehuk 4MW mrr4a r.Rrxhpl ratio on collector -level and above Level of Service standard e;z0 m" rW,rJ.ml.vh wJJy awlnm p+k. classifications by color, and volume ,rrv,r^ (voRrnre /cap°r ly) nod d,rY 1 ho,rr pr.. roads in the mid day 1 hour peak IP ` classifications by line width. rir—% � ` y travel period. The width of the _ _.c link indicates volume and the 't" t � color reflects the Level of Service. Ilikifalizm r.:r. r- r ile °��l � ■t " r ` t Freeway interchanges are shown i�� pi �;_ with a 1/2 -mile buffer. ir a.f,le Draft 1 .0 vii shed, eaatGOUntl o m / n.,.. . 5 ' • The Foowshed maps display the ; = modeled travel patterns of motor r vehicle traffic that pass through the flowshed atewa of the Main g Y Throughway during the 2 -hour 7. p.m. peak period. They indicate ; lhraJa+lndwir J:ydn ahe.,Jam. unJ Am "! bd.., iha pan ihawah In hn Ala Ra.waa sae and wan I In eel bra Jmnm IM:.Mwr p.n Ivh rraaA Ieand.I.M tia. a.pa6am nJe M nmmarMagn mne. in PmLd- \'an�wrn travel origins and destinations n* pn.aL�,a� :.w� n,a•�w.- n.n. *la.- wAln.• -al••m ..awmlL�l,wn.P,nLJ amd ea,. Ts,Lun. I16ke n awl n +en +nd m.al tua along with traffic volumes on the roadways. - The travel direction is indicated by (_ the arrow on the flowshed gateway � ^ 1 J741 symbol. The Truck travel map displays the modeled bi- directional percentage of truck volume to total volume on the main throughway and key parallel arterials during the 1 -hour mid -day travel period. This map also shows the RTP Freight System »'_ 1 classifications and freight -related s ; land uses. _ f -= - - f n . " This chart shows the percentages wladl Lend ,.. a.+r•I.Rp.rRrmN V►aa This legend indicates the RTP • Rll ham pe area m s Rw Ax�enAtlmNJ. M1.mYgRNMW • wm .mRVmmRm.a „ of Freight employment types ® mw., 71, *W.* Freight System classifications and = w o ; ;�,p �. R,,... h.a based on the total number of _ rataMora ew N IaA ae l arata freight - related land uses. °° °a° e " leenannnuen employees within the mobility Tha W frmd nue dhpkpaale rm•am deed TIds amnia naaMkan iry.ma1no' ask and corridor. alum n teal aulane.m I n aM na 'and areal macs Una Pal, Caw ad Name nil law as orha l Lea mW-0ay awl yea. In ahh anon pan! al 3.4 ne fa ma law mar, bean.. 9s sM,rreAa makr aq' • ann. anon u( eafe are re Tenant a anA nap of rn liJame. Rea was a tne.parecul Iy a NE 2a_ad, demaanm an In JOON a rammahn eased I - Mmeipn nuns means of en nom for imeep:mlad awes pm Jas Tn Kann Yee ante ap aniaaela l.23 leen amn.. Os a a a nal man ads Mn oeirtp.,. aim pea J.p Jkeel ha Ira ..w, n the mated ranound alas 3.11.1 and the Cana* Rea ask widen . a neaua. nasal men x aMamM On rn'add annals ex sae the ti ead and mem eml Arne. nod warns nA k4:w One I viii Mobility corridor atlas 1 Introduction The Transit travel map displays the modeled p.m. 2 -hour peak transit 'ft dn. „.°•' 1'w. 2 how Peek ridership and the ridership -to- capacity ratio for select cutlines on �- the main throughway and parallel :','1: ' ti arterials. The symbol orientation I . N. reflects the direction of travel pi11-.�.- ..,,, .tea J: while the size indicates the level of . J ridership and color is used to show This legend displays the different the ridership-to-capacity l P -to -ca aci P ty ratio. 1 ��f —o i ,. M .., transit elements in the map .... S .F. LaNm. 11...Ww -ry above. It shows the symbols used M _. .•.SM... kr Wasm. ') mNl...mr, MIFw..wh d. - wk.- LB...a.mkn.r,.w. r7 *14 ows Of — " ew1ui °" to indicate the different ridership The Household density map shows � n,,� , ., k „Ik� °�. °.. ..W. 7 kn..N )FB -uB 1 - the overall density of households • . o Ul ...ti.. J.JL° ` o ° °. °I level and the ridership -to- capacity Sr as a color gradient, such that the 1:11z. ratio. deeper blue color has a higher fieeiat. : 110A. density of households. •' `' ..6 ' ? ;` r shows the overall density of The Employment density map 1 i .1M.la�`' ��a . i i These quick facts represent a variety J?�41 .. +'�a��M"' households as a color gradient, of household and employment data Quick facts M. that has been aggregated based • - -'�' -°"�°° " ..m ;n such that the deeper blue color u ▪ - ,... - w - 'r - m. -w has a higher density of jobs. upon the Corridor Analysis Zone for the specific corridor. The Regional bike system facilities and gaps map displays the different Pecond °'` "' " "" " "y "" elements of the bike system. It � , �` shows existing bike lanes and bike 1 WI f boulevards while also showing ,. w (. where there are gaps in the RTP ' --...• ` • �- designated bicycle system. it i , 4- — � 7 ( -"lam" ...`\ OWN 1 Me To ,.r,,.,.........rk...... .k„,, ,,„em 1..nd we This legend shows the different .1.1.0`.....11.... 'kJ.. mi. r J, n b:Lw p...p. ...kJ. . k ..kJ. Tw. — B':"m...""?' Om , bicycle facility classifications and and n,k.I:m m. mn•..l•rJ.4 mMIFr •m.Y. ..� B.. W.A O n.....m.1r.m„•..mm....”, 0.m. - " i h' - - the symbology for bicycle facility ,k.Jnn.m:w..Ink W .n41�Jh...m pn.:Ld m �••• ........, -.. gaps. 0 ,,..,_-_,.,..„„........., ..Br...d..o...b. 1.- ,...........mr. am.L.. Frvmm M.nwe.nniM.m4 .n^n* VP M..mrymM iM mmwl . hwY M.y.k .e m. 1µk r. - , ..w.h ik.i. ,. .n . , “•, MM.I wF..Iim.rJmhip:. kd�er in �M. n \.m �•'J' ^M`.mWm.r 4r.1 •�I4,al.nn..mm,lrn. in m :I re F.. m rM,+mn4.. 14wlw..J ee.. l4r.rrt,M....Jw kar ..en Fp,F Ind O facts These quick facts represent a variety .. .p.. . .h.. n . M�_.J., ♦:Nn .. .wr.Akh.n ... Me pail ...hemµ.W n..mi of bicycle facility and multi -use =C:., ..h.. e. I..m.rW F....F....m.J .. 14.1w..J.1u..n(CnJ \'•n.n +e! p.Y^M^ path data that has been aggregated .m1....A r.w IM nufr M based upon the Corridor Analysis Zone for the specific corridor. Draft 1.0 ix The Regional pedestrian system facilities and gaps map displays Prntmul pe Ws... rys:ew yea im es, sl.1... areas where the sidewalks are :- not complete on both sides of the road for both the RTP designated .\ "'� pedestrian corridors and also along ;' —" —". all 30- minute or better bus routes. MOW The map also displays sidewalk -- Av completion within RTP designated 1 _ ____________ _ ___ , pedestrian districts. .. -- _ - This legend shows the different Sidewalk system Land um Iheaaluadivdrl"ur ryer"(. Massm,z4. ..P � °"' ...slew. OW. " ° ` " ° " "` '� "' "' `° " "`p` r "" sidewalk facility classifications and w r" use me.. and 1...1.1 Jr s. NI.n t u ms, .•pp ui• — +...+..-,a ua uamnthnunrib" Fre u." u .•YUIg Y. me pull • pew. ummem., .:l�..VP. 7........ sous mei u us. the symbology for sidewalk gaps. e Ms. ,,, „, " , ' „„„� Fvnr. Jtrin:.M au.. m tn. ...... Faiulmq Sklewalk 10° SlJnvalk gap' IM.SNrtuq srI n.il density .ry J.mr.ure. the ...... lh narFFx: v pmM.uA.J a..J ia.upMe Fecal ...me. resesuees .e.".. .FkraR rn"."l. Sods.wal, awl 1..1 de" "" + °uldc These quick facts represent a The Sidewalk and trail density ... ,.r.. i " 't1i�• , , .. " " variety of data on sidewalks that sans map shows the overall density of � � ; r' sidewalks and mutli -use paths as a �� i ; - ;. r +�'_[1�J n .� C "� .g mMa"aa._�r,.. has been aggregated based upon be - ' ; '4' I the Corridor Analysis Zone for R color gradient, such that the deeper i . . e : 1 .4 it blue color has a higher density of the specific corridor. ZS sidewalks. — FbhilvWu...• X Mobility corridor atlas I Introduction Portland Central City to Tualatin The Portland Central City Corridor ..„,„4,1„..---.........-__- o,- e,° t r to Tigard/Tualatin mobility Cedar Mill ir i - 1 dd ++ � r 2 s fyl' S , , v \ corr encompasses • o nset T G Rd L aos i • i 0 . r '! ,,,„ie t _ ` w; "' ` I -5, parallel arterials, as s " , ' . r; p Sf Stork S[.,. , , - S � 1 0 r ' � / y S' Hr w rho ne Blvd , , n,et w ... .� r / • y ; ° well as bus service and • �\\ rye H, f Y ,SCt . Q ° � AW. J -7.= bicycle routes that support Regional Transportation Plan �'-' ° SFOvrs;on s; Ale 6' .� Ww Street and Throughway System o'co 'Vv P ;tr °" r' " " movement in and through $ w 5 . i °o • / <; _ . �! Principal arterial (fwy) 6 .a)l jton Q w ,, ,llsdo r � ` sws 1 , sE Holente Revd r the corridor. I 5 supports principal arterial (hwy) +-.�S y o � y o Major arterial II l r �alei s T � = �o , \ m _J interstate, interregional, i a -. s _ sESc�a�s and 1 o Minor arterial 3 -SW ont m 11 ? _ _ an intraregional travel Collector of I:V rien lvd Hi Isd • le TC'; F; I regional significance 1 v �I for people a nd Dods y R' P P goods. o Rural arterial 31:1 ur,�'enH r, r d SW 7 , rno %, li \ �a "s f ' SW Barbur Blvd (99W), (urban- tourban) , . f ' o ) < __Truro 3 t . Rural arterial �® ,` �hmgton r) r p-,..,,,,, .I ,E raco SW Boones Ferry Rd /SW o (farmto- market) • Q a 5. a r e RC = i ; it i • es , - 5 w " rav 12 Light rail transit n �- o Terwilliger/Taylors Ferry • 2 - _ ® ••4- Streetcar 3 iF ' ` i �" Rd and SW Macadam/H - W est w wy ++ Freight rail N ", 0.51 •Dir an TC - { tlw uki• 43 are key parallel streets. .' -. County line iA /f S6_VSre he so St l >'ee UGB h' � r ; ., n , `' NTC1 The arterial and collector - I r10 A_ r �, ,-,: —� Tigar "^ sip ^n r s R d ,�a Q Employment areas r st n c - - - N 1 -,' SE PorA A, ;� stree networ ten to b tv orwiu , 1n arose sr k � L - r Q Industrial areas " „- � ' C n winding and i / � , k � �-. �� g d di i Q Urban centers sv i of e r Qe ` 'sb 8 ar� R d 4Un y - ?- ii as a result of the hill 4 SE @ Ave - p , . e 1 i r , %rro , � ' a� a- sE H, c hilly ...e) Parks, open spaces 1) i N L a k e O s ,e o C e n d R � -... ,�° ,o� ° ° , o: , °° g � �� topography. The area is (/ cP �� t � F c n � � r f. g// .&'D %n s ake Ifr eTC ° if °�s ° ` ? predominantly single-family residential served b sNi I ing 5 , _ -+u I I o yEc J 0 P Y g Y by _ Ci TC Z_% 'j - 9<< a patchwork of well connected and discontinuous /) s i A eon Rd y f P o- k y d \ 'PO,,, ''y local streets. SI VTmId[1nR a ��; "l v - - I C I st D, 1 1 alChdds Rd L f '7', i,1s Rd J !t�\ �`i '4 l i s,. Tua a z a P , r C , � 9SI . 5 - ,, � � I '� I 5WSa'ert.St ' t � , �. A very St. ras` 3,G ;or lana� I °: �i /i ,_ pl�.u , U � I Ri • ° ± i"-'-44 ,:. �d { s , h t d , �� a � ° dv Rd • 7, 1 r8 -- J-,43 - 'on "∎ t F ; 1 : / , sE e`' Quick facts derived from Corridor Analysis Zone (CAZ) (PI � \ r y r , _ Z 2 r y Y JS � ,- S� - { ' 2 U i h 5=. *1 " Q g �� \�s rNest Ulf, <' TC ) r Y ° Area of CAZ m square miles + :Th ' o - _ -.Cit RC s £ 139,247 Population , sV Day Rd '� 'F P- w„ r _�� , c . 58,498 Households er R d Sburc t, � . , , - Yr +.o �rletro, Regional Transporlrtf ) Plan (RfP Ze't: 7 Mw a ,c 27.9% 9% Households covered by 15 minute transit service Zoning 110,647 Jobs 72% Commercial, 28% Industrial t 50.5% lobs covered by 15 minute transit service 11 — krrj riT V * 50 Bikeway network miles • NZ 13 Trail miles � 40.0% Sidewalks completed in RTP ped. districts ■ ��( 640 Total roadway miles Ml Wool r ' 21 Miles of RTP freeways �• - r — Miles of RTP highways P VS ( 27 Miles of RTP major arterials II d 11 L q ' 1, r, M ❑ Corridor analysis zone (CAZ) 25 Miles of RTP minor arterials 1 le • 7 % Commercial 14 Miles of RTP collectors s r p" • 8% Mixed - use commercial — Miles of RTPruralarterials(urbanto- urban) MI A t IL 5% Industrial — Miles of RTP rural arterials (farm-to-market) , ,:,:, iF 62% Single - family residential 553 Miles of local streets r 6% Multi- family residentia r t., • — Major river overcrossings 111 -.-4,i 1 C ' , , 8% Parks and open spaces 104 Intersections per square mile 3 % Rural 2 Freeway crossings per mile � . - <1 % Public facilities i `„ Source: Metro, RLIS, 2008 9 Mobility corridor atlas Corridor 2 Draft 1.0 Motor vehicle travel, p.m. 2 -hour peak Volume and Capacity :.� --I f ed N �D` `' ' "" rt qr 3 PM Peak 2 hour auto Volume to capacity Mill TC ', 4 1 " 1 * °l ne ,p� , i d ' - 3-' . " ,==,==!E Bu � ig l-7Si ' ; C - volume (symbol size) ratio (symbol color) Q arnl d , `7, Mr a = s , . � ? •? ' ' t le l i� , y,S E NttOrk:St i 1 s . Sunset 2 � (: �' -s <40 9 =Rot rs 6,001 15,000 0.9+ . .1.1/ B - .x .' ICen "z 1 .,;4,1. f., , ; � E r - r l 3,001 - 6,000 �� I / 0.81 - 0.9 SE!' _ _ ( 1 r 7 rr tr T . t i , -4' 4 , r la sE D �r 'r % Se 4 R ° y l '- { T .,- iRd . � t, tt S �. r p `?.- q � z +s J ,.. F wa 1 r r t z-- �r " L,+E , h i 1 �`°° eu�rd 1,001 - 3,000 0.71 - 0.8 � eaverrto f n ,; l j A. 1 1 I r r I : ? /t r y . ' I S L V S rtYr 1; ` E Holg B Q= SW Bea Hdl ;: m �Q It 9Re ; F Ralei h , HiIIs TC 4 � ' F .\.0 , ¢ �4 �NI 0 1,000 CD 0 0.7 i r A i B " } s ue I re � 4.1 : ` H ill`sd al e' C : r? 1 W N r 3 1 < ., r r SW,V 114,01 ;,` N i 'i ; �' i Land use v r s A llen Blv 3N r ! - -_.-- - .-- — -.._ - -_-- r--` r l w vT � . + i t (1 & i • s ,, L ir r '4 i�� m m t as S Hart Rd °�. ;.LI 1 , ... r T" t H e +N o "' � � �. Y� " � s i � F' : Employment are — V , + "' I 1 j I ndustrial areas .r ll I 4. "r -��.< <' v oi } j, 1 - 7 - 7. 1i" o� ,✓i `' 1 i 6 -1,, L t p L > E T c omn St t y a ,,_ ,i clWi_i z r I f r y° "3 ) r ti , ' 1 1 ° , � ° b Urban centers • a 4. � Bi •n S ty -.-r} ,,l > �r {i r.` a .�y tl ,,.s "1r=4-. r 1r �, 7� , t — + " f" . 3 ... 1 P i 1 tt .I T - fr +— �� -! 5 -x i i . - " r Q d Parks, open spaces Q -J l ''''./1.. j !'Wash ing tonLt tL!a - -' ... i t '+T 4 ,.� c 1� ///J} }��F�\ rts�� at I 1 41 Vehicle overcrossing r - ,q uay SRC i aWe > o"f a dTC Y W ' t L ' ,' (1 j -- : s;3" ; ; - ` . t ; $ r !- ` -u-- ««-► Light Rail /Street Car r ., 1 � M — — — F� Q I(V s mo t ` s'.3 a tt f0� lie: -1---7. t - : 714- '`V° ''' "" /- 1'i �Eh � Motor Vehicle Facilitues l ll . • t 1 5 l < ■ 4d 1 0a Y ;l • Xi 7 ; -u1- k ; �.� , ; - - -A k " .. f _ : � Main Throughway ti `r Y ai I „ -� z t- ,_;7s1 has. ' i SF Park A�e Pt9 I 1 -- z' > Tigard c M e,roSe (Sr-,:'°U-11- i } ( - Interstate 5 � �I� 1 a a , v 1 r S a - arde4� T� i t -,-,,i M t C'B ,, K use I 9F I t d � g h Av c , ! `c) l 1 1' �. J - ._.-- -- - -- J i - r -. y � 4 � o FFF"' „ , sWjBontfoiRtl y -rovke = C 'ndley ti ) ', q Parallel Arterials r- - o � ",- r k _ Fir a Gr ove °TC : 7 s k r+! t ' ` Q �' t ik + �, f o' Lake swego TC a yt l, c o m n" `t. � lb ay•e r ' ;Iii G1 a " a 0 Highway 99W '' k� n _• i King- ar, w'S � r� south Sv : l"d ` on t o ` dl . r �° �> hl ��o e � Boones Ferry Rd s W S Durham Rdzi r e , i'� �µ�, a '�0ree i tree � ; (! c4a 1 5 1 . .-- m��',ll <arEtro+ r! 1 � a Y 0 Highway43 1 -1 f- r � >Ie Jean Rd al,0 "e ° °k Dr s �- ` ° P 4-4 ,, *i i W R dr cl s ' -�-,. ° Ber Rd r� 'i R I i- :P, '7. u -I 1 -,-: t� ( r. ' 1 s i i . " `! 1 -5 r ua and 4 C4 ' L �I ,_ r ' -1 t S, °� i l i ' s-T The symbol size represents the PM Peak 2 -hour outflow y n i ., L_ ts E hldlRd c �. , � d . " - , * �P r, auto volume at the corridor's mortcongested location. ' ( ^� �T I I f J P �� ( n i ' I c cxl �a r 2 The symbol colors match the colors of the motor vehicle " �7 i- r J r 1 ® l4.). r ^ ,,` 1 I, ` '�;` 11 1 rp . „ lherPotate.Rd facilities in the map and the chart. h _ 111 v z L : I f \ -. ° a�` . ?/4 ��f so , ,ia e %SO l { stv_ y _? d ' © - i i �' ' o � `�� \ ` , *: ° Wes T Oreg • Ci ty ■ ..., iv V' - f1 � ,. 1 - - � s C / afte r �� . > _ .r rr it ` R, / �iSW Homesteader Rd_=_r ?'°. /It �- -- M SG Metro,■RLIS, 2008; Metro, Visum Faye, Forecast ModeL7 000T141,8 Motor vehicle facility performance The motor vehicle travel map and chart compare traffic volumes and 1 � congestion on the main throughway and some of the parallel arterial 0 9, 0 AI streets in the 2 -hour p.m. peak travel period. Both directions of I -5 Ilir carry high volumes of traffic in the peak travel period and experience i' 0.8- moderate to heavy congestion. Average travel speeds fall under 35 c mph, which is significantly slower than free flow speed. SW Barbur .o 0.1- Blvd and SW Macadam also carry significant traffic volumes and a, 0.6- 0 experience moderate to heavy southbound traffic. Average travel speeds u are at or below 25 mph on the parallel arterials, which is noticeably o 0.5 slower than free flow speed. v 2 0.4- 0.3 0.2 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Average Speed (mph) Sources: Metro, EMME3, 2008 10 Mobility corridor atlas 1 Corridor 2 Level of service (volume /capacity), p.m. 2 -hour peak Iris-- �� Ceda onset TC i �. d to r��s , �, - il de'P I��t Eeorn;e :, �� j ` ` 1 s Pd 3. 7 - = < SE•Stork -St NI �' c , . . e ► r <e J tip o WarneBlyd Gate : ay R C �� ' h � _ ° �O� a CL. 'alp:, nY '.�. "} SE.Dwision-s - - of : eave a ° sw-c l� / 4 . 4 '' • S 1 Po w e , tid ' IT (Ra',I jgh TE 46f . ' .` I ' mm P 111111 I ;al ` m �� r L� r Hil�s ` �� d S � � 1 � y , Until" 1,1 Lents ■ SEF srer Rd a : , mo d „ ashingto o n, ! ( �. - SE-Taco • �� 0 S .r' P , 1 St uare4RC I ■ � yyI - $ r,� SwFOrnogt ----J - .� 3 , ` . wn - l n. � ,), V .. . /a': �'� Pleasant Mar 1 I= , I ; , 4 . _ _� ilwa � kie _ , Happy Val ey TC - t lrr•y /Scholls T, C _ ` l j gar.•TC k i ” --- , 4 .� Qlacka a s R. C SN 'SUrolls•Fe�s l B , i � a 2 Coun : Glub•Rd .? i 1. i05 +r . SE -Su,, v ide•Rd. ` � ° ` � r: wo ' �� ' yy�� L a e i � eg. TC )1111111 ( � us /./...„4.) ! ; L• . 1 Gr3re� k� 3- IIIP' IN K,i tty TEsw. .6orn I r • ,�- ,� e`' � � � t `. t iff I [1 f, 4 $ �f 4 t R1vet r lo 4400 ' i • G 4 i o os NM Tua afi T: %. 0 a - ` ��. ,./ " I ''a Gl a t d' to .:C herw� ©d-�C 4 1 `�ro Oregon • ity RC ; o Rd t` li r m 00 ' `' r I R • ' 9d t ' Ali \4©t t 1 o b `` C ' 7 %West Linn TC ' - i `I f 4 c-,4 c-,4 r s m , oug o f _ r r S•Redlo„dR, J : - �1 ss d E tI, sen•R d l '�. s ," ' o i i '� "N` t 11:: : .D�eiees- /. P etro, RLIS, 2018; ODOT 33 all Level of Service The Level of service maps show the volume -to- capacity ratio Volume Level of Service (v /c) on collector -level and above roads in the 2 -hour p.m. and (symbol size) (symbol color) Urba ce nters 1 -hour mid -day peak travel periods. Both directions of I -5 15,000+ LoS F (1.0 +) reach or exceed RTP regional motor vehicle level of service 10,001 - 15,000 LoS E (0.90 - 1.00) + operating standards in the mid -day and p.m. peak between 5,001 - 10,000 LoS D (0.80 - 0.90) Interchanges with Portland central city and I -205. Segments of SW Barbur, SW 0 -5,000 + LoS C (0 - 0.80) 1/2 mile buffer Boones Ferry, SW Macadam, and SW Terwilliger also exceed standards in the p.m. peak. Level of service (volume /capacity), mid -day 1 -hour peak Mill TC ��'til! w o" WBU.1 ^n yde 1��1�� <uinsi•e St d I ;WI W �_- NM ■' 9. III ' 6edar _ se .._¢Spol � ,, 1i ��Irri ••••-* a ' G , SE- Stark.St i jki c - � ' S g , , , � L � i cm, 7 .si owth ome•B1 d = a la■ Mir ■ r 1 NW n s e t S i �� m � ", �"■ il � 1 . =Aloha � ` � ° } ` ■\ r \��I.. �A \ I �ivision3 4 1► Be _ – verton R C Ralei h H 1ils T .+ tT' ' • u pip! ' '�� 3 _, \ ry �� • , r Hr llsdal- TC I, ° o ' � �� Lents T ;� � .. � _� � _ * �� /V� ! ii � , ■ SE Fasreand- , � I ei 0 _. Sf Tacoma St `rl, Washi gton S. _ `' ton 'P b 1 iv!" 5 u tit Portia ...IC lekA ., ,*ar . Pleasant alre farm �' rr SW. i�9 I t Q vs ■ � � � _ r /�.1� = M ., M y w I . .11..r � HaPBY■Valley TC Murray /Scholls TC Trgar C r � �� AH CI. m L Clackamas RG V. SWSchoS�� Rd 1 1611' .4 , NI County F lub•Re Av .. $i 1 �` #z S E S unnYside.Rd I' ' ,/ .��yn � � ' . a '1 / Lake Oswego TC �, T • � Lake Grove TC^1 pveu - Ipitainin I 1 King tly—TC Sw Dury // <� I � 00 r ` S,N. ic rl ` � !, fN1 ■ '' cy 444,17—,,,,/,7-- cm O ' R . we ( D s ,,,, 7ualati. ,,o l Lip ' o- �., zos TO '+ _- ` o`'re Gladston.r - oP 4 Sherwood FC -�'N Tuaia th s •' ` 7P Oregon Eit RC ` , a { t . 5 l o n J Bd . � , `` f o U ` sor r g' o' � Cd 'I,� Mil:: « 7 t 1 � West,L'1nn.TC �c � - i t s ►. 1Wr n st•J'' d o! - k 1. S Redlond Ro' r ,,411.:,04,\R s o 0 wrm .. . ' • _ `urc ` 1 � , RLIS, 20 8; ODOT, 2 ..„ Draft 1.0 11 Flowshed , northbound p.m. 2 -hour peak Creek ■ f Arl Frye Si Five sr Burlington ,` rr B 1i Vanc Banks ' iiir �' 'i' � If t `, , _' E v e r g r ee n rr 26 North In, ' Plains -Y Z, .., ,\\ ` eib .r Cam , � reek I ' 1, \ l ��, Par _� ' r ., cad ° ` j Portland �wy -i Forest ) Oak M ill -; ' Ma wo � Hors _ y Yr ief Troutdale G Hillsboro • !R�. rk ; F '- 1 - ' ` - - Cornelws cedar l' 1 P a g ' r'1 reset Wd 1 ✓lf --I /-- 's " Hills g .-.� ` C'�••a Rockwood village L :J � °'' Beaverton .o Itur ogri Gresham— m' d 10 Raleigh v ' Ala I! • * Hi175 �/ (1P ti 17 •r i Happy Gaston iley - -� L_ _MIIWallklelle �'•� � I Ti•.rd." La kes sunny ee 1 K oswe o 1 • 1 _ (i I {` � lohnson Damasc -f B L City Durham ,Oak o Clackamas ,,__r Traffic volumes F ` � ' c Tualatin 1 G rov \ sandy 1 - 100 4 Rivergrove West Gl adstone 101 - 500 F SFierwood Li nn Fri 501 1,000 _ r-- y r -1 5 os� Oregon 1,001 - 5,000 - 0 City N}+- 5,001 25,000 Vewberg /' _'- O Wilsonville Flowshed gateway % /`-' '' _ J Estacada (arrow indicates direction of travel) Canby - afayette Barlovn Sour Metro, VISUM; Metro, RLIS, 2008 , The Flowshed maps display the volume and flow of vehicles that pass the flowshed gateway of north- and southbound I -5 during the 2 -hour p.m. peak travel period. This section of I -5 demonstrates its key role in interstate travel to Washington; interregional travel to the Willamette Valley; and intraregional travel between Portland, Tigard/Tualatin, Vancouver and Flowshed , southbound p.m. 2 -hour peak Salmon s _' Fehda -.•Creek Prairie Five r Corners Burlington !( �� , •4 Vancouver Banks - ( ,\ f *SA Ever�reen_ f 7_= r 1J 28 North - - ' L Plains I • — ''� s_ , !! m� C 1 r-. I l NMI ` __Washougal ___ H ---- `s- Rockc eek I'� �_ P ( I f Parkrose._ -_ _ �� r - Cedar i Forest Oak Mal i • . Portland _, '', ) um, � , Maywo rai ew Troutdale Grovel H illsboro } ` ep L - Co neliu - } P ar ^ �'t wood d"`� -- .- �cr — ,. -- .. Cedar y _ Rockwood tali, il e , t..`f% Hdls., i t _ ��A A -rr 1,,...-,---.....n--: A o lh a Beaverton ( T ■ t G � g �l u • �` 70 Ral�h MS HIIls , t • 17 . • •• HaPPY ,r Gaston L_ . V Milwaukie Vanes J Ti• -rd-` Lake ,I sunn' ys�de 1< ^ -t r, \ I I, King r' Oswego - Damascus Boring\ lohnson Traffic volumes L Tua ur , • Grove [ rtv Clackamas sand • _.,_„,__r 1 100 Rivei6 ', wes Gladstone 101 - 500 F Sherwood '-- ~ Linn �' 501 1,000 - )es/ Z33 f ' s O regon 1,001 -5,000 , 1 ,0- City }+. 5,001 - 25,000 Vewberg 1 Wilsonville 4. ' ' -' 0 Flowshed gateway y - (arrow indicates direction of travel) Estacada Canby f � � w _ afayette Barlo _ 1 Sourc-. etro, VISUM, Metro, RLIS, 2008 12 Mobility corridor atlas I Corridor 2 Truck travel, mid -day 1 -hour volume Mid - day Truck Freight Q- N4 Ce - ' o : i yhr ' ` I I ' I • i > . 1Par ._ i4f4F BUrnsce 1 St volume �c 2 - 111 - % Truck volume J 3 �ry ia' . a w n id e 5 tl Z ' \� 'a' 5tq --- St Freight Throughways . y ` . ? � 2.(‘‘l J � r .' I - ® Main roadway routes — � 1 � T • Roa d connectors p an t °i T � ) s Main railroad lines �-�- c;� / , _SL1 S - 9 ! i -SE Hatryotc Blbd Sr' _ 11 Boo ,�n e 0 4 , 1 , - v R . Branch railroad lines _ v �, c,;---,,,z7-7, � and spur tracks r a ` _ q 3 y' . I �LL Age, ,vd �; .,.C, er ▪ „'p-'..' � Land use ,.� S , SbV bmnr t 5 iI 1::1.''f'- SW ilcy'�al 'xC _ 11 o • swHartRd,._ ) F Rd 1 � � Cd Rail yards - . f. i.+ ` ., F lrl a� °} m � om osr� a �g st Q Marine Facilities �° .n > rile '` sro T �� fe Employment areas 1 /te (i- 4 : ),_,,,/4,- , . . Z� -x ..79 "5;''' � r r I a ' y Q i � - ` a) 1- W C:i .. Q areas t /1 ®r� r i �,�I ) I _ , - ; o.. � ` •. 1 SE K u7q RI Urban Industrial centers 1 C V 1 , � , ro S` F� d Parks, open spaces L , SE Pcrk Avc. > I v . i /ll& ose.St ' r rri ,:,=,:._-,:.-_- ISltj Gaarde St ' 1 c1 K us Count Club-Rd 1 ..- ve d n • SW 3 . ' _ Freight Employment Types _ -. Ch ondl r F li 1 — i ' r , 1 , f i l SW Bonita Rd p ''1� _ ! - a ▪ � � ■ 1^ s -.;--o oVe N I eY - d Y f ' SW DI horn Rd 1 r ! („ r 2� , 9 4 mouth 4 _ -Olvd .�c�, ;-�` 1 I E p - • �...� I • ( - � o �•n o / e� � Gr c I e f j ., > / I , �' . - t %�;, S a o f 1 • ▪ _ 1 1 / . ' , � I - r -�5 Bercls RJ I �� /� i - - SW Tualat ` °. r c r I , r 1 . ' mo t - t,IRd :. -P. I c' _, - ` 1 O ` , - , � adds 'Rd,,,, d- = I e o JS /NYber9Hd - ,_ �.S( ✓ - ;• � J \ _, I I o �o St rg ;St 1 C'1 , `w n /__,:),,,, 1 e 3 j J o l e_Pdi„ Rd - : , ;,, 8 3`/77 . 4 _ , / am sO g � egrt S � ^� SLt b � , •°;',0H-.:1, i 7-'1 l o / v, I , J _ II _ : L 1 1.44-i, Vi ®. _:i q d ° ,[" • : o f v I I`I 4 � I� '2 ', 1i- � : � -n1,Qi , S A-1. .� ri ( angs t ,: - Q 1 � 2 s ��., ,0,,,y/ I. 5 ,,,, Falls p> 1 ---"' d ' I' t ( " , \ f,5 � S ✓ �'� ,- _ 4% Transportation/Warehousing /Utils _ ----s,< ' ' 4% Construction sLU Elh Rd - t. _ , ▪ ` - - .� L ms, v, d 0 d - f - ° � i ;1 6% Manufacturing EI S HOaleste r ! • d - , , rna Source. Metro, EMME3; Metro, Regional Transportation P1 F-4e g1l! System, 2 $ ... # � a% Wholesale 17% Retail- Services The Truck travel map displays the percentage of truck volume to total volume 64% Non - freight employment on I -5 and key parallel arterial streets in the 1 -hour mid -day travel period. Truck <1% Natural resources volumes make up a significant portion of the total traffic on I - 5, the primary Source. ESRI, Business Analyst Feb. 2009- based on number of route for interstate trucking on the west coast. On the arterial streets, adjacent employees land uses dictate levels of truck activity. SW Barbur Blvd carries a slightly elevate percentage of truck traffic due to its function as a district highway and commercial strip for Southwest Portland . On the parallel arterials that serve primarily residential and local commercial uses, truck volumes fall at or below 1°A. The Portland & Western railroad operates short line rail service that connects between Southeast Portland and Tualatin. Draft 1.0 13 All n Transit Travel - PM 2 hour peak Household density \ m o� ; l a �� s S r ;: Gne ,---- t c d zZ t `" £ Rum s ide St = —� . ® ' if I . LL r ,� ?o n 'de • i 5 ` 5 ' G e nt a i EIty • J z . .3 £ -Stork Sr � . . .,, k � / sunset . , �i ,z „'` - t �' if Q �� 4 �� ' 7 o , T , • 1`° J s I ti Y ® C) j s s '' e O ; _ p WG ' .6 - �1 • ■■ --.4 L - _ vhrc SWA= +w 5 „ `" ,, "' + p _ A � • I Gbo /¢ , _ rG hur St SE,Drnsro t S t f ''* v s .� CnnvpP { 1 �.I` + � r °t a /LB!v a I ` � \� * e ms –� �ti R &ot HII s T , <s s r a Holgarn Blvd �� r v� -. 11 i, SE l . P W6 H11 dal w P ,� �.,. a m ,� om. �•� I `a✓ Beavert.n RC s -lJ N HIIlsdaeTC _ 1 WI' , W �` , it, SW Pylyvdr . r +n. .� T `lv ` a» � �7f - t - :: r S W 77 rm°nr St '` .- I S _ b '� t SW Den _Rd L r - r�� l' `'(, �` - P' ( I ° r'- r,SW Mulht J1- 8A 5 - ` j I . . - _ 4. "J` 11' , yn. . U y 'CO' 1 ' SF T neama; S t 1 1 ._ i s ' ms 's q uare RC 017_ F— i 5A1 -,', - �o Fury r ® C • H Feel '— (� . mr LTe. 4 ° - '-West Portland TC P ,7-1 l e° �i; - 1 - ` SE I I . i hs ` TlgaYd • �sn sr Pn nsondr _ ti O i wauki T e C . 2 TC; M LI L r�( C, MiI s F � Source: Metro, Metroscope, 2008, Metro, RTP, 2008: Metro, RLIS ., - y : 1 i „ ,,,,,,,,c8—, `^' CLA Itr�1Vl A S S E Pod, Ave ' f � ( . x + I � ,- , z 4'14,t Melrose St of x I � � `.: T . ,, ' 1 1 °- °as R d o Employment density - ' Gnarde s a � ' ' g r.Kr J °” �� II ° - 1 Frr /Rrdge Rd , r Q Q r r SlN'Aonrtn Ri ; i — y t I^= • "P � 5 j I h - t L a ke l Grove T C Lake Oswego TC � I - o r 'r ' �. ) " , ✓ SW Durham t+ , \;:,_,/,,,e...-' I 1 Q1 �. ° rc dl vd n- r ` King City TC—` – ? ° . Co scut. • o E �° a .1J�: y 6. G j C i , 5 m ;, r y .._ , ,.. ' .feanj Y i -y �� SBeraand 4. Na .kt � _ a :� ..' SW. T u °l on n l t 1 � •:. = ,., r . - i O °' / � I i =° r a l' ,-r,,,',. It o ` d 9 s l SW Nyberg St - t r '''i L ,n )1' . Syr _ ualat .-T€ SW�ogert St Lr - ° o S• ; T� x t t3 4 � tvery st Fi os o F � � �5 �� i t m , m. � o I ( t -•''C' _ ,, i , ± , ?�� _� I ke kA� t � / / 3 u„ / s � s o�ryD r ' Wet'Lin 1 � n TC falls pt w ti , � _ : -. 1 1 (', -" \ - ' o- Ho , ° % I Njdl ° m e .-i I + �_,� .. '' , r s. I SW Day Rd 1 i I,i ' ',I:, - - ( \ 'f�:ry Oregon City / J I 3 t +/ y � f c . .Y y A t -L' Ja { 7 Ellrgsen ` ^Rd � .\ �� . /1J - j , i j -( t ,L si. HonesteoderRd .,o. t �/� •� t Mi .u rce: ' (Aetr o, EMME ,- 2008, Metro Transportation Plan, .0$ M,�ho, RLIS , r \$, ti . i Source: Metro, etroscope, e e:, etro, R , •■:: Metro, RLIS Transit Service Land use Ridership and Capacity Bus line - 15 minute or better service PM Peak 2( t ' t ca Q Employment areas ridershi (symbol hour transi size) ratio (symbol Ridership o colorapcity ) Bus line - 30 minute or better service ... Light rail transit p Industrial areas 1000 + 0.6 + +--- Streetcar Urban centers Q Transit centers Q Parks, open spaces 500 - 1000 0.3 - 0.6 © Rail transit stations Q Schools 250 500 0.1 0.3 c� Park & Ride 0 - 250 0 - 0.1 Quick facts 58,498 Households 110,647 Jobs 11.7% Households in 2040 regional and town centers 17.2% Jobs in 2040 regional and town centers 27.9% Households covered by peak premium transit 50.5% Jobs covered by peak premium transit 14 Mobility corridor atlas 1 Corr 2 Regional bike system facilities and gaps Bicycle System u q Cedar P' Bike Network Gaps' ' � - , Y • GI �mSr i • MITI TC c •J • x . - c I I .. '11 - fI g _ t o lGLtt � � _ C ¢ E Bu rnsde St = 2 _._ W Oon �,, Sr, 5 _ Bike Boulevards :c . upset TC Rd '' - z / - , o Sf Stark St .`.• . '' . , Bike lane SE HOw[bo 'e''S ` . • \t s1/ ps tti,, i Gys � ., crs rz� �� Regional multi use path i A't ‘ 4,.. c t il. N 5 5.4 � -� S ` (_ ` Slt Arthur St • t W DrJioonS, alp - - i use • - lblF .. 1 0.r. r = si� a , r r, rr c o i v o _ � ` i .' stv vo (ID ' s 1 FRO "P / NN in C) Urban centers �4 ?�' d Parks, open spaces Sly Fnmin tn p, .; HOlgn1 'i 1 - .__ •d . 0 SW/3 our � lc c __ J' Q Schools rr . � r � Beon F.,,, Ralei_tih1r s vc o m ,R1 � IG ? Ilk 6 �, Sc- Steele .5, • W Allen h �d J cJ st tumohr Sr Hill dal �� Areas in the network with insufficient data are J� e indicated by black lines (∎ ). SW Denn y Rd - • ' � i'Q • • z ,�, s - .I a ,. � 2 RTP Bike System facilities have black outlines. s ' Gnrd r Hu Rd SWH°tRd� 4. of ° -' br,� ' 1 ^ l. W ashington Qt,, 0 Z c, V t ;. qu. re RC - ,,1; i- J r ` ` � - "J,- ' v "° t- r �� The Regional bike system facilities and ry j$ { 5 ' s r ° r m gaps map compares the network of '' .' - t 1, a • _ •'' a Q - 'Port1 2 TC built bicycle facilities with the network F, f l'',e.'''' < _ _ SE Hnrrrion .St c c _ - > I � i sW SchoPs - o ,e envisioned in the to identify service , �. P � � Ilwau,k �sioned ' h RTP 'dentify see ' e U ® e° z i� i rC gaps. There are many gaps in the planned 5 ' ULI NOM H c a S ` ` T ' -v L K Rd a; �F network that limit mobility by bicycle. H sw Ja In Sf • 1 ' LACKAMA C� �' sr Rn . _, �'" I 5 M`'' O5 6° ,,,,C,-.111.• - Os A primary function of the RTP bike system `) ° ke La ego TC 6V Goorde St p o '- r2 F g S F r r n • v Ave is to serve 2040 Target areas, such as the ` . ° Frr dge Fd 4:4,,,,,...; ,, SW Mcdonold St, 4,4 C � J _ _ 1 , ■ k ! .-',1 0 SE ii(t: Portland central city and the Hillsdale, � dRd 1 0 °v -- GroveTC \t 2 c' z ,d ' ,, , �c ° 1 ° i _ T s ° oh, , F �° cr ''' Lake Oswego, Tigard, Tualatin and West S`" GI TC W D i h om R d 5 West 6p s° h r 5 S Portland town centers. Mobility to Portland e �►►r, ' ' ifdr Rd a ° o - _ i ? , sk y' �� '-� " ° ; central city from the northern end of the • SW li olnhn Rd - o r '-` `o t 7 corridor is generally well- served but there I r s ids. Rd c , l � . i p , e r,- , o are many gaps in the planned network to Tual ti sW vberg St a n Ids - , ,r J . w• N berg d 3 = Rd - y ` L , r r ' t ' _ town centers. r S[ r 'P cer ' sw Soo : St -Bor / or , d Rd - \ 4 e F \7 -' .',, � t .: ' opt os 1 it V _ R ,,,2._. . - . e Rd = �. r -- ii' _ ,O - ',t- c c ': I r N � t O . Q '. I s 9 ? t-g F- nsh q J r ' F ! " z ,z , , s • c � N . s ° E g on Quick facts • , SW Dnv Rd 1 / � - o ` a c, 7 , City RC.:.- - t' ' - _ ` _ : ' i . 50 Bikeway network miles t sl-, , _ ' g -, -- West {Ginn ,, ' VC/ d 1 ~• SW HOrnfs[� l _ _ _ _ r - ` • sy >df a 1.1 . u cude,Rd _,; ' - ' 50 Miles of bike lanes , M k . o ' urce: -t ro, •; •Tonal Transportation Plan, 2008, Metro- RLIS 2008; Portlan BIKe Syst -, - !' • . . ft — Miles of bicycle boulevards 13 Trail miles The Portland Central City to Tigard/Tualatin mobility corridor has 8 Regional trail miles several 30- minute or better bus routes serving the Hillsdale, Lake 5 Local multi -use trails Oswego, Tigard, Tualatin and West Portland town centers. Transit centers are located along SW Barbur Blvd and Hwy 43. On many routes, ridership exceeds 60% of available capacity in the p.m. peak travel period. Planned rapid streetcar service will run parallel to Hwy 43 between Portland central city and Lake Oswego. Draft 1.0 15 Pedestrian accessibility Sidewalk System �� $ a.• —..� d — Exisiting sidewalk' Nlt %CnrO cedar ; . t r -'� ' e h , I ... e4 rsne'sr ® Sidewalk gap r z...111 M TC � ' , I ri a s ¢ li urnside 5t n;d ^° e r i, SEStnrkSr ® Regional multi -use path Sunset TCi 1 43nIl ; , r �, � . ' " f � S - Proposed regional multi -use path • '36V 0� , s c s j J 5 "' 3 ,, /sun-tti ' "'' 1 s -: q Inside Pedestrian Districts ttrp ma7� - � 1 �' $i i ' 5ED,vsionSt — Exisiting Sidewalk 4 Beaverto t RC e6, - - '' , � ). i' - se , - - — Sidewalk gap 2 0"v o r - s' P - �r'r // Blvd 4 ° ' l' go 1 .4. 6 Light rail transit _. : � z s ,,,,,..„ ; _ . 1 „ . , SE Holgnte blvd a 0 5+ &tivi: t of tlshdcleq� tl m -.t — Streetcar iii Raleigh Hills TC -x II I ' z ,- ', 0 Transit centers �' ! ,.r`' ' W ' 0 Rail transit stations 56 ; " Allen 1 {l . `^ - -, - ;• - - - - -- -- - - - -._ _. _ ._ . •. • tiLV Vc n nont z Hlllsdg 2 1'C _ - _ • ' S C' 6yb e 6,r Land use - -- _ SIT Gorden Nome Rd ,� .H p; 7 I ( .. M SI ' d RTP Pedestrian Districts Ullastimgton :' Pd . r Q Schools y ... quare RC ;` - S T, A '~ ®�,, d open spaces Parks, '�,,. • , re£ k ® Pedestrian overcrossing • 1 , V' S' West . Portland TC r Milwaukee —_— �. '; � '' ' . -t C.a ; . i � (`' 5i s henson sr � � � Along 30- minute or better transit service • c,-, i St 2 Less than 100% on both sides • °� ,? P edestrian Districts are 2040 centers and Station Communities. � h Trd E ? ��I�'Li � � 1 f i F qn 3 - . Yn ous n S '' �, , -, , c ?c KA', �' Sidewalk and trail density AV C 1e 5t ' '! trC ! _ Kruse f didr c R l "� • ' ''''s I T • 5w Ncdcnnld Sr . - - : d - Ir. �t / a' _ - - 5u13` t F i r * • - �4°''-')};-;''' Lake Os ego .. 1 •AO, ra � v l ° T C' a J ' � u r '[1 P d :. ' Cd Lake Groye TC 4r,,re H vd y a , `, r �,. • SW Durham RU ;_ Btrd vn h , , ; L �• p` , • , ! " 1 wl Kin City ft ,- . __ ._ ;� t . s � , G rtree e' /, c i:' �a ''a - T` l , ' ..: -„,-, r -i "3 -- tl� .. -', ( B er is Rci Z, � O' a f-.:. . .�� h N . I ` ' ildp t • SW Iuclotin s 3 r'_ d Rd I O -, ` t` ' ■ migi �- Chlds Pd S 1 y 3' y' - d TTF T u al atin :411144,4 � w, � S 'flor ic1 I c I - t © a _ Ny erg Rd j : ° c ,' �. Q <4 - �_:. r?a • SW-SaPc t St S _ ? oa \----V7'-''''-`6-'''' .:JO' - # / �b _ 56V Avery St . 0---r-7.,- - _ ' ` ,f O . c am ' `; O c 1 / ''' a - , " : ;'o / ,',..10,;.0.+.11.%'' ,3 A, f / /. 7 4 . 1 r _ roc \ g ��_ i ; sw DayRd L - ?`% � . :4,,' Oregon • City h { 1 t` s wenf a s Rd n ' 1Nest linn`••C --' i / A �_ _ _ t 5,1 Home stea der Rd `r,,. • • ` 1 +t N, Sl1'Ridde�fR _.... - _ - _ n 1 Mlle _ I Source: Metro, RTe 2008; Metro, R LI ;, QQ /ODO7 2! . .t our ' 0,' ` 4 5, 2008 • � The Regional pedestrian system facilities and gaps map identifies missing Quick facts sidewalks on designated RTP Transit/mixed use corridors and Pedestrian districts. Sidewalks Most of the arterials and collectors have significant sections of missing sidewalk. 40.0% Completed in RTP ped. districts The Sidewalk/trail density map demonstrates the completeness of the pedestrian 46.2% Completed in RTP ped. corridors network across the corridor. The corridor is largely deficient in sidewalks on local 49.4% Completed along 30 minute or streets. better bus service • 16 Mobility corridor atlas I Corridor 2 Tualatin to Wilsonville The Tualatin to Wilsonville (----- orr jr ' i �� o 5 - mobility corridor 3 �.. _.. . r r, „ _ _ - c, ;N , encompasses I -5, Westside S N -- i berg Fn ?' �"� l S /Y Express Service (WES) 9w, o uala�tln TC �h ` :v so�, - rr51 I commuter rail, parallel q 1 , ,Z. Regional Transportation Plan r- ' ∎ . 4 Orland d fi w� © o� arterials, as well as bus Street and Throughway System Sher uoo ® ! �' ' ® Principal arterial service and bicyc routes p (fwy) TC N o y ® Principal arterial (hwy) . that sup movement 5w Oregon sr o Major arterial in and through the o Minor arterial - £> o o r Collector of —. ,_ i, - corridor. I -5 supports re ional si nificance a un t Blvd © a. 1° i 9 9 tT . • TOON L` s N - -- , \ . interstate interregional o Rural arterial r CLACK'IMAS CO ` I Q mtr na trave . t o n arter ba l n) (urba l i Day Rd s and ' aregio 1 1 I Rural arm (fm to I arkets — >- - � ( o \ � a lso provides access to the +,. rail , ,� — Light transit \ SGT��rr� as ® ElfiycFn Rd i ;\ Sherwood, Tualatin and 4-0. Streetcar r s SW Homest !e. grt ---� Freight rail i t R - i-n f 1 - Wilsonville town centers, e / -c ` .. County line " I — a— w — T O - employment areas and UGB �; II I li -- � � industrial areas. SW Boones Employment areas , .. , ,,,,,:k„. 1 o Watfall R &\ LL r 3 � .� ,, _ Sh' Advance Rd F e rr y Rd, SW Grahams Ferry Industrial areas ion R d , SW Stafford Rd, and SW d Urban centers � . P �s ....c1:12 Par open spaces c,, __ 65th are key paral streets. J v\f(` 0 _ k_=witsonville With few overcrossings of ; i.t 1 -5, east -west mobility in the r I � 4. = Y ) - - - - - -- corridor is limited. The land use pattern is largely Y1Y5 s; rural. However, the corridor has significant areas of -� -""i',:`,` y Wy ' ' 'e, industrial and employment land in the urbanized N Q �j' � i sections. The collector and local street network is /2.- ' v e 5 a mix of farm -to- market roads and discontinuous it ez 0 - I residential streets. W • a z ` �: N E Arndt Rd L - Quick fa CtS derived from Corridor Analysis Zone (CAZ) SAmdtlid 7 I% o — Area of CAZ in square miles 63,742 Population cources: Metro, 'egip l Land ormation System (RL •), 2008, MerroA,Regional Tra ortati Plan (RTP), 200 23,816 Households \ 3.6% Households covered by 15 minute transit service Zoning 79,189 Jobs 52% Commercial, 48% Industrial •C 4.6% Jobs covered by 15 minute transit service tur 33 Bikeway network miles r4 _ <1 Trail miles `t 74.6% Sidewalks completed in RTP ped. districts 388 Total roadway miles • 16 Miles of RTP freeways 4 Miles of RTP highways — ❑ Corridor analysis zone (CAZ) 2 Miles of RTP major arterials 2% Commercial 27 Miles of RTP minor arterials 1% Mixed - use commercial 6 Miles of RTP collectors 8% Industrial — Miles of RTP rural arterials (urban -to- urban) 12% Single - family residential 6 Miles of RTP rural arterials (farm -to- market) 1% Multi family residential 327 Miles of local streets ) ) <1 % Parks and open spaces 1 Major river crossings l r) + 73% Rural 26 Intersections per square mile / / I I 1% Public facilities 1 Freeway crossings per mile r I 1 Source Metro, RLIS, 2008 Mobility corridor atlas I Corridor 3 Draft 1.0 17 Motor vehicle travel, p.m. 2 -hour peak Volume and Capacity r , • �� d PM Peak 2 hour auto Volume to capacity I L, volume (symbol size) ratio (symbol color) II i � sN a�!f•' s21 -® - - I 6,001 - 15,000 0.9+ € ' r, . -, 3,001 6,000 0.81 0.9 ., j ? �v /1 1" 1 ' r' ,_ -- 1 k iY * ----- -- Vagary / J - i 4 li 1,001 3,000 0.71 0.8 5herwoo te ) _ ,� C1J':a i 111 1 0 _ ty ol / r , - ti �� t ' 1 1, 000 0 07 a __! r ly -., ' 1 ", ' l_ _� l � ,' Land use o r ton SW iereluv ^ I _ _ ' s 4 ,P, J Employment areas r { = Industrial areas �? i = ': i CLACIAMAS CO.' I + I W r , 1 II a ' l J j (1 r 1 - f i b Urban centers e t At � � , r � � _ � s nr� ( � ! ,. -� L. Q Parks, open spaces � 0 il �'Q r . j , ,� ` 4 - SW Ri._sen R, i c .� ( \ +n, s % %` ' 0 Vehicle overcrossing l i ._ ! SW Nom ettead r d' I � =` , , Q ,;, 1 .�_ - - - .T «..-I. Light Rail /Street Car 1_�" � . 1-- -1 ! P, 2 . - I - ; Motor Vehicle Facilities I @ — We t{ou Rd I Main Throughway It_,.. S 5W A vaace Rd ! " d ; v ; 1 1 Interstate 5 • ' a !t ` r ' - '' Parallel Arterials c4Arib a _, } U a << � ' . 1* 4 1. 0 Grahams Ferry Rd O Boones Ferry Rd I /` �a ' a .. r -- m 65th Ave L l k - , � k lr Stafford Rd � A.! , 6 11 . ^� 0 s G r 1 The symbol size represents the PM Peak 2 -hour outflow �?� k.,././ i auto volume at the corridors most congested location. 1 4- 1 .-,' - (.4-* — 2 r — e colors match the colors of the motor vehicle 1L8.•., - -- y a"" f aci Th lities symbol in the map and the chart. z 8 , '4 " - ' • r.,,. // Ql L N E Lj 5 rnd a l + v � 5jf i r $ _ 1 _ '.0 .. � �" / / - Nnle Sources: Metro, RLIS. 2008; Metro, V( TraSel Fa M , 2 0D07; 2008 Motor vehicle facility performance The Motor vehicle travel map and chart compare traffic volumes and congestion on the main throughway and some of the parallel arterial 0.9 streets in the 2 -hour p.m. peak travel period. I -5 experiences moderate congestion southbound between I -205 the Boone Bridge and northbound 5 08 0 from the Elligsen interchange to I -205. Congestion on the parallel streets o O.T occurs in a few locations. Average travel speed on the I -5 falls below 50 mph, which is reasonable for peak hour travel. Average travel speed on C3 ' 0.6- O parallel arterials nears free flow conditions. o 0 a) > J 0.4 0.3 0.2 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Average Speed (mph) Sources: Metro, EMME3, 2008 18 Mobility corridor atlas I Corridor 3 Level of service (volume /capacity) , p.m. 2 -hour peak IONE 1- - ,~9 > , lebcnu Rd 1 1 ' �D jr., , . `�r�..r J ? � L 41- L ® � 5° - fit '1.7 vb a St Child., R 1 / ' '`r Tualatin TG ; `y\' r -' 1 / $ag Sr • 205 � . _ . ` / . Rd Serwo T� - , IWA n' St :W 0 ., _ r y w h n 7 - ik Q q•' ,, . - y ., , t F 7; 2 SW Cl,a",,,, SW Sunset ,h_d 1 1 :•. J. West 1 Linn TiC Oregon . -Rd Sur -- - 1 / � . : City R Brunt. r SW Day Rd �Vr-. 1' �� _ . 4j _� l / t y ' �N. f rili SW Advance Rd - ff A la % Rd e, s7.� ' „n,d � ,Wilsoille TG - i J ' ,e' � _ J - T „,t �� NE S C P.. ,,,, .. ..,... NE Rd S� ,. .. All z \ M , a ",/ . 1 urces: Metro, E E3, 200$Aietro, RLI5, 2008; 0007, 2008 Level of Service The Level of service maps show the volume -to- capacity ratio on Volume Level of Service (v /c) collector -level and above roads in the 2 -hour p.m. and 1 -hour (symbol size) (symbol color) Urban centers mid -day peak travel periods. I -205 reaches RTP regional motor 15,000+ LoS F (1.0 +) vehicle level of service (LOS) operating standards in the p.m. 10,001 - 15,000 I LoS E (0.90 - 1.00) ♦ peak southbound between I -205 and the Boone Bridge and 5,001 - 10,000 LoS D (0.80 - 0.90) Interchanges with northbound between Elligsen and I -205. In mid -day, northbound 0 -5,000 - -1- LoS C (0 - 0.80) 1/2 mile buffer I -5 exceeds LOS operating standards between Elligsen and I -205. Level of service (volume /capacity), mid -day 1 -hour peak d beau Rd 2 � - . rr . L o` ', o 5 Le A ' Tua ; rnads R_ry, ^" NI d Sll' NI'ber Rd rr� On: ' G �SanC $t w.. 2 05 �\ 06 O,. a SW Ed Rd = I sh erweo • TC - / Jw Avery Sr "► .r y _s M1 J c ' ., , , Y / �,y v. VI Z, j ■ P I` ' y \ JV y .7,. SIT/ • y °4 t � ., SI✓Nr Q elne , e, I -- _ _' / .P F ' . -0 $ e q � J ' 2 ry `Y • Blvd 1 s IAN ; r c a r �, �� W a,,,W,,,, i . K r % ; W Llnn TiC O er g Rd - f - ,,,, ,i_ "� `� City R SW (Stockman- ? SW = Oo '_' o •. Rn ,,� c t c rr C , / . 8 � r i , '_ W • , 1 r SW Homesteader Rd �` ` ' `: ." e` ` • f gy p c. • r -1 f _ 4 .'-' i ' SW Advance Rd _ 1 0; / r � ^ • �a`/ oT o ' , r �r, - WiIs oiawiIle T,G- : :& 0 r.-- ?J . ,, VI, C., QQ . Wilsoc'of e6) r = NE Qp\t c J 1 It y � 2 ti ¢ � ; . z NE rer(,to Rd e 11 y $ CON` Rd � o n N 4 c - Pje Z E.....".''.:1 Z S E ,'• o �fWrndt Rd s Al $ AYndt R d > 4 pJ< —` 0 2 Ec M+. J - , rtes: Metro, E E3, 2008; Metro, RLIS, 2008; 0 • e7, 2008 / Draft 1.0 19 Flowshed, northbound p.m. 2 -hour peak 1 Salm „zit. -, on - .pi Prairie Creek A \ �r rive corners �A� �� r � r r Burington \ r V an couver 's r Banks N� Evergreen 0 \ N ry ,`�` a ,� ; \ W Plorth ainS 1 -- \��` -\ 44 • 1 � ashounal .a _ r' •Rockcreek i. ' " •\\ '� Parkiose. r 164;1 ceg ' _. '� Forest ^^II" �� a Portland Ma va,rv,J •. - . - ._ Hillsboro HII'' rr C ornelius F-� (,: �- • Aarl�},4-.k d - k' Grove` � r C edar ^ - ocw - ,Vila e" 1. .. Aloha resham � • , ,., _„ _, Beaverton V iw } w �r'�� ' G G 01111 Raleigh . �1 it' i 14 b NJIs ( ,�� • HAPPY a Gaston — - e)f Mi lW aukie_ 'aue � \ j r j '� Tigard Lake; suhnde 1 King Lk, „ ! o 4,7c7ali sDamascus Bonng L_ cit j Durrham" lt‘ ,' Traffic volumes o k > kart,a s ,.--r ' Tualatin • w we Sandy -- -- 1 - 100 Riveigrov w t Gladstone 101 - 500 She wood , Linn , • ^ 501 - 1,000.r_ -� ,5 26 v `, Ore on ,... 1,001 5,000 •v, A g ' Ci ty g O 5,001 - 25,000 j , i..... - •".."... , Newberg 1.:1 Wilsonville Flowshed gateway � (arrow indicates direction of travel) - J Estacada Canby — .afayette Barlo� / Source: ■etro, VISUM; M etro, RL 1 0 08 The Flowshed maps display the volume and flow of vehicles that pass the flowshed gateway of north- and southbound I -5 during the 2 -hour p.m. peak travel period. This section of I -5 demonstrates its key role in interstate, inter- and intraregional travel. I -5 moves trips through the region to other west coast locations, to the Willamette Valley and Clark County, and within the region. Flowshed, southbound p.m. 2 -hour peak Felida_ salmon .__— Prairie . . Creek -r'' L Five \\.„........s., L Corners Burlington ` ') Vanco over 1 " Banks / ��.. r Evergreen 11 een CP gm North ' 1. Gn, - Plains I t `_ 5 C v I �.�� ` T __ washou g l p i 1 Par I __ Rock creek Ceda �1 "�' ' POrt d a ' t dale - Forest � o k) M; IV � a M a Fai '�`,` u .- - Grove . —_ ; Hillsboro Hl ywood v, - T ro •. ( Park:.. l, - C orrsel us r ' .. - i�T Wood T� - _ Cedar ry Rockwood villa4 ger •✓ f '� Hills :, _ A1 - I. ? Y B eaver ' ton ', :. }fin _ � : R a l ei gh 1 _ =' r ' Gresham - , Hap mil Ire H. it 1 E�, Gaston — y • Mllwaukie Sauey ■ , 1 r Tigard' \ o d' Lake �" t sunny ) � \ 1 1 _ King O - " , Damasy, Bo ring L Ciiy Durham" urham ak GtY [Id ,., r.._ _ ,- Traffic volumes Tualatin i ' G ro \ . Sa 1 - 100 Riveigrove ' ;West Gladstone' 101 - 500 Slierwood > z6 Li � oso I • 501 - 1,000 s l L - '-' O r e g o n 1,001 - 5,000 'N r - g � • C i ty , # 5,001 - 25,000 Newberg J sonvI ill � < . G Wile 0 Flowshed gateway e y Estacada (arrow indicates direction of travel) -I Canby . _atayette - Barlow . - Source: ret% MUM; Metro, RUS, 200882 20 Mobility corridor atlas 1 Corridor 3 Truck travel, mid -day 1 -hour volume Mid - day Truck Freight I. = c.. r _:, , A . - ` lean Rd , t C r w - n11 R d - ',ti ` 1 ; I ' ' 1:70 . % Truck volume P 'c, v 1 ,11/ Childs - - - r I o 11 -" J " " Freight Throughways \\ j' s tvNyncrg Rd _ - - ';-----' Main roadway routes ,- ' . ' .• RV Co rgcrt 4 . , , i / _ Rntinnd __ Road connectors 00 m �' ..--, — Main railroad lines -- , S I C 0 '" ° © Branch railroad lines e r Q AV - and spur tracks J 0 -c Rrl be -- I I_ - i 5� 1 I � F o a o o r .® s ✓ Land use - SWSa TON Cry ; t '/, -1 ss E O Rail yards :� CLACKAMA.S CO. ; p Marine Facilities z I ° " ^ q Employment areas i '�" p Industrial areas <� ` r \\ - / F Sll Hornestec Rd= s� -+ c ��--- O �- Urban centers 1[ r IN _ 5 j l ' 4 —, , j d Parks, open spaces -r , _ J d: SW II y Ly - ,,___ c 'an Rd 111, _ 511 ,Sc ante Rd _ -- _ 0 f:, / 0 1, 1 / „ a — _.__it- I =II 5 �f < a, \e T. / I ' �% Freight Employment Types t o az /s N l s Qa i',.2.$4 1_ - - 1y. -. . I 1 al W li �mi • ! 1 1f _ Z -mdt Rd____ — __NE S Arndt P� -.I ,S� 4 C I ' 0 - 3 - - 1 ` , raw Source Metro, EMME3; Metro, Regibnal Transpor .n Plan freight System, 2008 / The Freight travel map displays the percentage of truck volume to total 5% Utilities /Transportation /Warehousing volume on I -5 and key parallel arterial streets in the 1 -hour mid -day travel 8% Construction period. Truck volumes make up a significant portion of the total traffic 23% Manufacturing on I -5, the primary route for interstate trucking on the west coast. On the 17% Wholesale arterial streets, adjacent land uses dictate levels of truck activity. The parallel 20% Retail- Services arterials serve primarily residential and neighborhood serving commercial 26% Non - freight employment uses and truck volumes fall below 2 %. <1 % Natural resources The Portland and Western railroad operates shortline service in the corridor. Source ESR1, Bus:ness Analyst Feb. 2009 - based on nurnber of Approximately four freight trains a day travel on the line shared with WES employees commuter rail. Draft 1.0 21 Transit travel, p.m. 2 -hour peak Household density -- +Fs s ,,,stir lean Rd .;r : -� .a S ` I _, , a _ s„ Tv rlotIn Rd ."17.1.--,2-, X I I > r ,,:: . - i SW ,Jd Rd _ _t 1 - ' - i SW xi be�,75 1 = - :� III a ,,,6 0d .. • S'W Nvb Rd r r _ -- ' L ober. ID 1 \c r valattn,7C - I r -- Si'' sv sa St — 'I � sVL� (for(nnc! Hd :s ' " STuhlaun Sher- - ' y j _ Sherwood 'o`' ',- /1- - EI< \:r`. t o / Std e° L nJ E r i Y I ...- f 5 - i r � - r .- '0, Cr : i Rd j* �jj S A _ r J l C 0 , / , I ' .�'r.i�� - -. I"LM3t / SW3unsr-r Rlvd� i x ® "� 1 %/ ' i� r7 A! .� _ 1 :, p / r 1 S_W Day R. t 211 / _y _ 0 X7:1 _ r r '4 V s 2 .c 1 \ �^ar -� IV_ J _ _ SW Homesteader Rd - y i 1 _ �� E R s ✓ r l 1 4 1 Source. Metro, Metroscope, 2008; Metro, RTR 2008. Metro, RLIS m ,� v _ _ ___ L 51 o e,_kmnn Ri ,i _SW A d_vor - ,ce Rd 't, ,: Employment density 1; s . a -9, to I 3 I ��r 7rt � }' IL �aV I 1 o f 1 < s - , 5 11 Wi lsonville JC - � ' (� P Z `^,_y/ I I _ , P: . jig 4 6 j .1 ., , 1 , N E a Q Z v r r nw f T 3 �' z I I l t c / I _ +per v - l ' ' ,✓ 2 0 /. r � n � J .. > L'r l ''pp —_ I 11 1 Nf A rndt Rd s'Amdt F� `` `' Ar _1= >` 11 % - 1 �,, Source: Metro, EMME3, 2008; Metro, RegiNtal Transportatorl Plan, 20D8; Metro, RLIS, 207 � _., , Source: Metro, Metroscope, s s:, etro, R ; s IT:: Metro, RLIS Transit Service Land use Ridership and Capacity — Bus line - 15 minute or better service PM Peak 2 hour transit Ridership to capacity Bus line 30 minute or better service cp Employment areas ridership (symbol size) 1 ratio (symbol color) .» Light rail transit Q Industrial areas 1000 + 0.6 + +-* Streetcar b Urban centers Q Transit centers Q Parks, open spaces 500 - 1000 0.3 - 0.6 © Rail transit stations Q Schools 250 - 500 0.1 - 0.3 © Park & Ride 0 - 250 * 0 - 0.1 Quick facts 23,816 Households 79,189 Jobs 6.4% Households in 2040 regional and town centers 11.7% Jobs in 2040 regional and town centers 3.6% Households covered by peak premium transit 4.6% Jobs covered by peak premium transit 22 Mobility corridor atlas I Corridor 3 Regional bike system facilities and gaps Bicycle System r . ] Id o , V; !ern Rd so .. v' - - - - -- --- -- -- i -- -- -.. --_ -.. � ' 3 ' ® Bike Network Gaps i' _ s j_t - Bike Boulevards 1 � Childs Rd. . 2 _ Tualat•�raTC ;,;,N I, ry } R a '' Bike lane �,; , 1 - d Rd - Slt N h ero 1 1 , ,,; , —® Regional multi -use path 1 I =' I i to\' 5W wgort st - Sw Tiorrond Rd Land use 4ets I / Cf l - ' �', '7F—rink-am f Sher °0'o'1 Gd =- a') Urban centers Sherwood TCc y d Parks, open spaces t s _ j Schools $ i ' I . i _ i d ....•' - 1 1 1 R Areas in the network with insufficient data are 5'y $linnet 1:31,d l 1 - ,./ °' i ndicated by black lines (eon). WASHINGTON co., ,I , 2 RTP Bike System facilities have black outlines. a_C.LACKAMAS CO. y y ;' 0 I - ,,0 . ._ ., „1 Oat, Rd I • L I r v F' r „d Sy. Elli,vsen RdI - �, ` t . v"3-11 Rif "1 5 h nestroJe Rd - > -- 5SV Te_oze - I = 1, _ SW 11 tfol[5d �, '5 /V Roe, mo Rd c1 - e, or ' The Regional bike system facilities and c' l s i r ' gaps map compares the network of r.......- s sw 1Vols,n „n_ Rd . built bicycle facilities with the network wilsonvilI T C envisioned in the RTP to identify service gaps. Portions of the planned bicycle - -_, network have been completed but 1 Sw a ,Ier,, � significant gaps still remain. The lack of �° pry;_ continuous east -west streets across the -P region also impede the ability to travel by 0 bicycle across the corridor. z I ? 1 A primary function of the RTP bike a mi_: ?' _ -- z - system is to serve 2040 Target areas, such as the Sherwood, Tualatin and ` 5acrd'F d s � ;5,' Wilsonville town centers. The 2040 areas - are moderately served by existing bicycle routes with key gaps in the planned network. \ ' M''. Source: Metro, Regional Transportation Plan, 2008; A9■tro, RLIS 200 Portland, Bike System, 2008 The Tualatin to Wilsonville mobility corridor has limited transit service. WES commuter rail provides a.m. and p.m. peak train service between Beaverton transit center and Wilsonville. WES shares track with Portland and Western railroad. Frequent bus service connects north Wilsonville Quick facts to Portland central city. South Metro Area Regional 33 Bikeway network miles Transit (SMART) service provides local transit service in 33 Miles of bike lanes Wilsonville. Transit ridership is low relative to available — Miles of bicycle boulevards capacity. <1 Trail miles — Regional trail miles — Local multi -use trails Draft 1.0 23 Regional pedestrian system facilities and gaps Sidewalk System t ' ° Exisiting sidewalk '. r ; v 2 •- 111 , s , T at , ,, ; , Sidewalk gap • i., 'i — aid Rd J -' o Regional multi -use path ,, .. 4 - i . ` I Proposed regional multi -use path herw T a „t Fr ® i _ �_. , sualatin T � I Inside Pedestrian Districts ' 1 , o4w .^ S•Sngrt 5t .• I _ — I Sidewalk ' 0:".. _ .S � 'ver S 1. ri % _ © Exisiting Sidewa 1 _ - - — SEtual4tinS Sidewalkgap . Sherwoo .,..2-i.11---- C :' -,. / ! -1 s ',or, .L 4 .' 0 Light rail transit � ,,st 1 I a0 , 1 �; - — Streetcar r1u 1 �, r -- v1 II � � j � , , . b l �) I ,�,�,_ . _. ® Transit centers I -� -' .4; + 1s4f' d -1 tom-- 0 Rail transit stations i`'• . 3 .� �`' ' T' Land use r b 511r Sunset Blvd _ i r I t -- / j g . , , , C) RTP Pedestrian Districts 1- I .;ta n V / 1 `. ° Q Schools SW02yRd. ;r+( I —• \ d Parks, open spaces t • - ■ I '81L- -. Elli.sen Rd � -- , \ a \. i : { Pedestrian overcrossing 1 •• � \ r � _ , , . � „ _ , _ • CO. it SW Homestea kr \ _. i 1 ° ` Rfd er R ! ' 1 Along 30- minute or better transit service. j I! c� L _ _ y a . "•. �` j r 32 Less than 100% on both sides h m' , r 3 F 3 II ,, ,s A.__ i I Pedestrian Districts are 2040 centers and Station Communities I l ,.- - - �: -S _Westjol(:R ' �2:__ --, ' "L. B k mmRd - ,� � a _ _ � ,n Sidewalk and trail density a d s. 3 , ' r e ` J f a •. s, (f ti 1 ! 1 i / /�,�, r z iV I I : J.” ��)L ! �, J �lls4nvil Pd R . Be l l Rd ^ S tphi r ` . _. - 1 Wilson�v'ille TC � ? I II .{ _ y I r. - J �6L5� 511, .; _ _ . 1 Ng r i� = = "�" et z _ `, f- m .'g + / 1. Iz l am_'_- _ i .211010 3 o J g r • I z x # s lI {I � '�”- -. �c 1 NE Arnd4Rd - tii/ .--. . N t. 1,� Source: Metro,. AM 2008 y 1 Mde i Source: Maio, RTP, 2008, Metro, RLIS, 2008; ODOT, 2008i ■ ( +,) The Regional pedestrian system facilities and gaps map identifies missing sidewalks on designated RTP Transit/mixed use corridors and Pedestrian districts. Quick facts Most of the urban streets and mixed use centers in this corridor have sidewalks. Sidewalks However, most of the streets in the rural sections of the corridor do not. Also, 74.6% Completed in RTP ped. districts the discontinuous local street grid diminishes access to transit and neighborhood 66.5% Completed in RTP ped. corridors destinations. 62.1% Completed along 30 minute or The Sidewalk and trail density map demonstrates the completeness of the better bus service pedestrian network across the corridor. Local streets in the town centers and recently developed residential neighborhoods largely have sidewalks in place. 24 Mobility corridor atlas 1 Corridor 3 Beaverton to Tigard C orridor The Beaverton to m w _ �` _ I Tigard mobility corridor Lir ar N {� sni ' -- I L_ , ` � mill TC '- � � � encompasses Hwy 217, MAX I y ` ° -_sue II encompasses light rail, Westside Express F N s�� g P ,Sunset a : , _ Service (WES) commuter 1 9 �1, \ TC j Regional Transportation Plan ♦, T rail, parallel arterial streets Street and Throughway System ® sf, '��j \ ° S �� \ r as well as transit service s Principal arterial (fwy) �?: k yr r sr Of 5e fit.,,, ■ Principal arterial (hwy) • ? R s and bicycle < routes that o Major arterial °a - support movement in and o Minor arterial i0 �` s v R� throw h the corridor. Hwy M'S Collector of regional significance 5;V 7- „ s�� t Rural arterial ----- u"' i , , p B ,: eke 217 su ports intraregional ° (urban -to- urban) yif`,y ° z '�. p Rural arterial �� . d C� S� , travel between Beaverton, o arterial , W s, ,For ,) W— AP.overtgq Hillsdale :Hwy - �4 (farm t r I , 4 Rai g H Its TC S, Hillsboro, Portland, Tigard, •.• Light rail transit SW e, d � � ��' Tualatin, and Wilsonville. Tlid Wilill *+ Streetcar z � ' a 4 '/L Freight rail Q SW Ha ll Blvd, SW Murray county line V sw verm° ts� Blvd, SW Oleson Rd and UGB SW Tenney Rd r . v SW Hart Rd d " e� - - :3 SW Scholls Ferry Blvd p Employment areas ,off �sw Mu tnomot •red Q Industrial areas -� � or e � : , are parallel streets in this e ,- s` ° i corri There is a diversity d Urban centers ,. �, , "' i a 4f ...9) Parks, open spaces a /pc St ; � " . r I swToy,°rs re- r r" of land uses including several commercial centers, ash in ton_ SR Weir Rd ; �� // g s �� 1 _ 7 " „t employment and industrial S q u are RC ;' '` o, stv o n. t ' areas. The local street network is a patchwork of We ortl d TC 1 j - well- connected and discontinuous streets. Murray' /Scholls TCi ^ ' ,' ' ` � i,; J Tgard T ' � a „; � 5 ) \ M1 T F . • °C`` Quick facts ,, W 1c.on r t d , a l4 Q r Wo ,, derived from Corridor Analysis Zone (CAZ) _._j___ 5±,L,_8„11 Mu, �' looarde St 0_.._ __ o � { `` 36 Area of CAZ in square miles �k L l ak e 161,399 Population fi o . 5Wafefag :ram Rd 0 ,, Grov�-4 ff 65,594 Households .. - to, Regigrkg,Land Info t ari T- f(ILIS). 2008; Metro, Reg .. ' . tion O 1 • _r / c .. .i/ 33.0% Households covered by 15 minute transit service Zoning 120,599 Jobs 72% Commercial, 28% Industrial 111r4 50.2% Jobs covered by 15 minute transit service : / 57 Bikeway network miles 111- 4-7 / 24 Trail miles MIN "...— 47.4% Sidewalks completed in RTP ped. districts lasorp,.. jam 603 Total roadway miles 111 I ,� 6 Miles of RTP freeways �� 1 Miles of RTP highways 0111Wipf li a 30 Miles of RTP major arterials Corridor analysis zone (CAZ) 38 Miles of RTP minor arterials 4 0 tilt Wi 111 6% Commercial 9 9 Miles of RTP collectors " ` 1111 20% Mixed - use commercial ilk F ill II Miles of RTP rural arterials (urban - to - urban) 4% Industrial t Miles of RTP rural arterials (farm -to- market) Miles of local streets Ell —W.I. 60% Single - family residential � 519 �° 6% Multi family residential — � Major river crossings <1 % Parks and open spaces `* — Rural 109 Intersections per square mile a f f 4% Public facilities 2 Freeway crossings per mile 1..1.. Source: Metro, RLIS, 2008 Mobility corridor atlas 1 Corridor 19 Draft 1.0 145 Motor vehicle travel, p.m. 2 -hour peak Volume and Capacity y ✓ ` , ; ,c - __L. PM Peak 2 hour auto Volume to capacity s F � k volume (symbol size) ratio (symbol color) - i Cedar Mill TC I 6,001 - 15,000 ( 0.9+ ze Sunset 3,001 6,000 0.81 0.9 TC �� , NP 1,001 - 3,000 O 0.71 - 0.8 Sv, If - 0- 1,000 CD 0 -0.7 = Land use e rn , s W ..L9''',.•=' Q Employment areas �_ -� n -... .1"��r rton R I ••.• , p Industrial areas _r_ 771,111 _ E a) Urban centers I -= ,y - °r=-�• �] �� eaverron H, del H Raleigh HIIIS TC� j ' -- 11 l ,� '•x : U a , - '. -,,,� Y y ,., ,, i � Q Parks, open spaces o , t. * SW m ero _ d . IN );.� ,��n � �! __ <- �y � ; • Vehicle overcrossing . W v � -Y • ',R." � A11 —M, : s v ' �I, i. ' ` ^�d~ Light Rail /Street Car 4 Rd •. ..A 1 t . +�� 1- r= es ac Vehicle c e Motor o Mt Vhil Filiti � ' � h Xe � c i 'ten 1,2 1 ( t/e,1J a l - o-i a*--� . o ■ 5 . ' r .� 1 - r, „G ib 4- . ' ji 3.' i e ` le i' b .l � k. . ^d ,R p � �. . -k ili .. Main Throughway • l C..7._ I -- ., Hwy 217 ,, " f e J 1 1 Parallel Arterials �' 57 - _ _ : ; w To; r Fe , F, Murray Blvd J Washington 1� Hall V Square RC ,,"'tno i.#4. q West H II BI d � l imp Sw V Portland liming TC Scholls Ferry Rd /Oleson Rd r� la �• - -E SL — Iti an � M 4 1 I e I 4D k I* y IV i The symbol size represents the PM Peak 2 -hour outflow F ,};� 1 . ' '' f ' z::::: ::::e:::r:::::::icIe 91!� ^ \df . icle ,' g '� g 7 4�- I 1 , - Tigard i Pit :4 facilities in the map and the chart. I I 'g • ' , ., ^ Wti . 'fi rs 4 1 V �r w p.�r� ^Y - �� i f - ,� t... T c Sw I Bull " Mo 0 u -s,. {I • - 1 - 4 -. f It . 1 r. 4 CI, r 1 e ♦ A , I r {1 � - 'itA. �` ] j r . YS - - - "`` • -� E t% m • :I 14.1".1P' s1 ,.I., %\ Motor vehicle facility performance A. 1 hit , 1 — The Motor vehicle travel map and chart compare traffic 0.9 '4 volumes and congestion on the main throughway and some of the parallel arterial streets in the 2 -hour p.m. peak G 0 . 8 travel period. Hwy 217 carries heavy volumes of traffic and experiences moderate to heavy congestion in both directions. o 0.7 al The parallel arterials carry lower, similar volumes of traffic cr 0.6 and have varying degrees of p.m. congestion. Average v travel speed on the Hwy 217 falls below 35 mph, which is o 0.5 considerably slower than the free flow speed. Average travel a', J 0.4 speed on the parallel arterials is about 25 mph 0.3 0.2. 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Average Speed (mph) Sources: Metro, EMME3, 2008 146 Mobility corridor atlas I Corridor 19 Level of service (volume /capacity), p.m. 2 -hour Belmont St, peak 111 s� tq ��q� 1 8 ,■ � �..`'"' ♦J `1 • nep .�, , ? ` 3 ^i u i �IA"w"• " •�, ` n I I . .., 14 .,_ 1 1. ( - . -3 z Cedar; II •C `, W �/� 11171 . 2 - ,N n, 0e t(?urnsde � / a s ka7 WR " / C Sunset T - 2t .\ 4 a t d y� _ s nselrne R °� gosehne Rd u F l'.`., ,i. Q ....+m S E . .' s'. , , , 5E R -.. rnr or - e , v , „1,77.,, ,, , . , . • m, I �� SWMedoRd q �y W d k kS ,,rt H wY ' itui411L: , SW Ho'''rn krllet..H,vH 041114 .. '„it mv`I coon P �, IjA , M ve'B%vd 4 . r -, 0 = 0 : • .a,,yer�ton RC Qy SW Beovert ,7'11.",, y 'W S ir Ar Y ' ,A H �lgote Blv t n`o 9r I ^SWr F SW AIh vl rill .t 1 j EN E °` SW r owsRd 3 �, ♦ SW Vermont St Hillsda el �I 3 SW Rosedale Rd, 5 = c rr s SW �t� >Rd r ! B S... StN Hut 10 { y o °J • j _ ' S 1 f I �� Fige R. i ', Q ° C a� I 5 " • s 5f Tacoma St , S Z ., 3 : it , r (ei N r g i 11 I_ W Bro Amon St o `�o,I 0 e d3 g S W rrvS ' � � c —_ U .e h ' . ..B er, °, � T,, ° a 1 _ SWWeir,Rd p Wasingto .� - • ,, 1--: N p s �q e R C i ' . 1 We s ' ° rtl/ d TC + �_1 ^ 1 S (W � : � P 4 rs 1 v • -� D SP/ Stephenson 5 MIIWaIJk1 1 7 '4. C � a y '� s °r g O. \'$___ t 3 � P , F/ U f d Murray,�Scholl TC M ` ,. T,i ar. TC 5 - �'� -OMA ° q k 'q i / 3 ti ' ` s l f ACK A' `I ris a°:�F� . .SE Pork Av 'R I ¢ > .,6 , Melro.e S[ 6o O \-x r� i ` � � - ous Rd SE Calm.•Au S : VGuordr se. I Kru�s^ -0ve 1 Stvoll Moon, YV "llOt' J handler R f C - :,Rd S' r--- .. r or'. F The.: R� C L a k e Oswego TEA sml' � N I i • h° � , Lake Grove C SW whom e - - Rid ��. ,,. �r dl y ,, Rd M° -- 3 .. , h o E ,n po: : ,11: RLI err j Level of Service The Level of service maps show the volume -to- capacity ratio Volume Level of Service (v /c) on collector -level and above roads in the 2 -hour p.m. and (symbol size) (symbol color) Urban centers 1 -hour mid -day peak travel periods. In both travel periods, 15,000+ CID LoS F (1.0 +) Hwy 217 reaches or exceeds the P regiol motor vehicle 10,001 - 15,000 I LoS E (0.90 - 1.00) + level of service (LOS) operating standards between US 26 and 5,001 - 10,000 LoS D (0.80 - 0.90) Interchanges with I - 5. Some segments of the parallel arterials also exceed LOS 0 -5,000 H LoS C (0 - 0.80) 12 mile buffer operating standards in both travel periods, particularly SW Oleson Rd and SW Scholls Ferry Rd. Level of service (volume/capacity), mid -day 1 -hour peak py, ■, `� "/ ".;�J• IF"' i RT 1n 1t3 [ Por• na 5 • i z Cedar Mill TE \ ¼ L __. 11•,,r� e , ,,,. F ,fiimill N � \ Sunset TC a-' w y! Et �__' W Hasehne qy Baseline Rd ° t' G s itsE Belmon Se wi_ ti. 5`N . s ip P i�' ■t t Sr S t ��. C r �nr s. t 4 1,� +n ,� y am. H ;U, S \ . RI I � mil , M`■ 5 M erlo F '`Bd r,� /�^ ��W Sunse[Hs"Y i � � � VIM 111111 1111111 immos E. Aloha TC 5, \ S ,, �t sr r i d S W TU0 /oh t AIR AI' B ave 48n RC COY ' 1p1 F `o wes rs,N y , SE HoIgme Blv 1 r -- rn a�St1' ~ ::: s t 7� SW Bcnvr 'Millsdole Hw S'V `. _ ,� ' — ; 3 q ' °P a 1 Rtteeigh�Hi ° _ a , r 9 �`- p 3 ,n 9� ° S W Bad ., • ,-- �n F IS W Da vis Rd W V 5r ,Nk °` SWpok St 3 " Z:7:- Hillsdale C SW Rosedole R d, 5 ) stv perm r �/ s g ,. Rd --.1 SW Bo,` SW Ho rt Rd y °° ll''� i� � '., I V I .� SW Figert Rd p> • o'. tol 5E r,romn 51 ,4,- Z Z ��S �� ' � Fir i Y ®� ` 0 , ° a I — m SW Brockman St 1 • -• r 1.... - = Wa nyg , s i I na , "� sw, -T ° g - 54V Wert Rd 1 hi - +A x I _ Sgre RC m > Wes Portland TC �� N f y (^' 4. Ferry R A :ii - — =J m ,��I ,r 1 5 eho lls v , j ''� Te of o 1 ¢ � m , SW Stephenson St ` a MiI auk Te It .. 3 Rd Murra Schol s TC M S nJ 'ef d ?d ULTN H C I ° q� > Ti and TC _ ` ~ � � t - 'CK 5 C 0� s`LR pe Ro. °z '4.• �� J g _ ` �� l elrose S �" � > , A .1 ' 4 c ,.... \ N t t °u s SW Goorde St .. _ - ru s� Coun vClub Rd A Ave Sbte�dl Moun,o /, \- O i ° y Chandler Rd , .Rd - r kg Ridge Rd r^ s a !T.:: „m ° � / Lake Oswego TG"; 1 ' ° ' Lake Grove 7C �s�( - -- o SW Durham Rd a °`', o ' ,.r - , • .0•44-- t u E r , L15, - 004 I King Gity TC �,,,, 7' i I ___ centr r , z.∎:, D. ' 147 Draft 1.0 Flowshed, northbound p.m. 2 -hour peak f salmon e u ` Fehda�• • • " P r a nie I \ / r i� Fivel V /� Corners iii \ ._ CEP Burlington A i ll rr '' Vancou r I Y` "�, ►- 11t I �<1 y� R Everg , Banks D in North i' ' , ` 1 \. �!� a r Plains I � 1� 1 ell a _ r+ l 4. � snag _ C 9 r F it gizmo ~ Par krose _ TCe lar Forest ^ , oak tdillj' Portland —N1 HMIs M ..., Fairv .•, Troutdale m Grove H illsboro � k . Park aywood - _ 1✓ C orneliu s _- : 111 i >f' rot Wood �_� / -- • `� ( • Cedar w . . /,." Rockwood— 4, u- 'Hil 4. i L - r., - – Al ha Beaverton A Gresham ,—,.----1 - .. . le 26 I v Raleigh - r Hills ti A HaPPY Gaston - -� L_ Milwaukie valley L ie ` ts Tigard Lake s nnys.de l King Oswego `la hnn m z Da �us L Cit—yip:-::Call m y Durha •Oak kaas „--( Traffic volumes _ U alatln . , - ro ve 1 Gr ` 's, ton F, Sandy Rive 1 - 100 ) g West 101 - 500 Sherwood Li /,V 501 - 1,000 I_ --�1j — � 5 :o5f Ore on 42) z6 MINIM 1,001 - 5,000 • -0 City }• MIND 5,001 - 25,000 Newberg 1 0 !.y Wilsonville Flowshed gateway _ • e J Estacada (arrow indicates direction of travel) Canby -- _a layette r Barlo;---L Sour etro, VISUM; Metro, RLIS, 2008 The Flowshed maps show the volume and flow of vehicles that pass the mid -point of north- and southbound Hwy 217 during the 2 -hour p.m. peak travel period. Hwy 217 plays a key role in intraregional travel on the west side of the region. Flowshed, southbound p.m. 2 -hour peak Salmon Prairie' feida �'Creek / Five r I� Corners - Burlington is \ 'V anc o uver r Banks /' Ever9 rr North Q r ` `\. - Lros Plains Rock I , — C amas f s \ - i T. _ ashou Ir ry Rockcreek h• \ Ill" Parkiose _ ' r O r Po /rFor Oak Millti t M ood Grove _ s Hillsboro "ills ((� .n� y" fa . fTroutdale L - - Corneli us 1-r -; `,;,�. ...in Park f. WOOd — r -- • f Ceda ' J ,. wood Village 1 ✓rt � Hi lls r .1dM .if MIMI I `-r _ 6 II r Beaverton ' , Gresham • c s (D'Ogal Raleigh Hills l H ..' Gaston . —� L _ __ MIIWa UI(le v ane y T • �"--. Id ,Tiga Lake I Sur nyside I I ,.! Kin g Oswego �Io>o> r ama Boring Traffic volumes L T wham , Oak <<Y Clackamas ' _r y Gro \ ,. ' Sand 1 - 100 r j -, Riverirove West Gl 1 11 - 101 - 500 Sherwood Linn , 501 1,000 :at --t. s - . > os / , Oregon 1,001 - 5,000 `) ' City NV- 16 5,001 25,000 9 z Newber Wilsonville 0 Flowshed gateway e Y Estacada (arrow indicates direction of travel) Canby . afayette BarIow Sour -tro, VISUM,' Metro, RLIS 2008 148 Mobility corridor atlas Corridor 19 Truck travel, mid -day 1 -hour volume Mid -day Truck Freight - ' % Truck volume I I t i Freight Throughways 1_, • Main roadway routes LE , Road connectors 9 0 Main railroad lines it 4 Branch railroad lines (1 si and spur tracks J j 21,1 ii ' ~, +.� [ , -- : s n Land use ; I i SW.- rT, i i : - Yp ° Rai yards 1 rat co - -- _ _ Marine Facilities 1 1 -- Q Employment areas 1 . Eli' N !ice 3 ia`Il a -\ ft - � uen <a ��'y .,, t �� t " } Urban centers SW�ovi sQR�iJ `�1� ._ w ' OY : ! l _ F .t / P r -',.�. ,,, t om, ermont t , re - ]" , �, n urtjj .. fig , L .. „ . ".► �-, "` 1 I , g O Parks, open spaces _ SW l Hart Rd - R ;� - I _ " I �� l r SW ul no f� Blvd jam_ .1. - W Gorden ome Y �"+ +e =Z!!9� L �-eEi t {u ° i ` r t r , f � B o c k m n - sr " . r F 7 I � � 4 -!06 AiA y . 177 —" -f . _A!"" SW ryors Fe cryR8 i N v. �� r ' a Freight Employment Types 14 - „ r _ yp 6_.1,,,w, - ti P ie r � , - l E f S T E ,, 1 1r, a 'T-.1! — : .” • M li 7 • W � o seTSt t � = i q _ -S IY ull" - Noun m 1 oar. a SW Mchold S f ±� Q L e . , a l r 0' .. 'smtm -c r' ' 11 'ice ZA =-i , m.,. Source Metro, EMME3; Metro,'Region. ' • ati •lan Fr -(m8.• The Freight travel map displays the percentage of truck volume to total volume on Hwy 217 and key parallel arterial streets in the 1 -hour mid -day travel period. 5% Transportation/Warehousing /Utils Trucks make up a relatively small portion of the total traffic on Hwy 217, 4 % Construction although it is an important route for Washington County commerce. On the 13 % Manufacturing arterial streets, adjacent land uses dictate levels of truck activity. A few locations 3% Wholesale near interchanges have truck volumes above 2% but in most locations trucks 26% Retail- Services make up less than 1% of total volumes. 48% Non - freight employment The Portland and Western railroad operates shortline service in the corridor. a <1% Natural resources Approximately four freight trains a day travel on the line shared with WES Source:ESRI, Business Analyst Feb. 2009 -based on number of employees commuter rail. 149 Draft 1.0 Transit travel, p.m. 2 -hour peak Household density P. c:1 4...,... 4 1 %aye" I. 1 _ i 1 �3 a aJ z a ' 'r � Cedar MillTC 1 ; 1i � r "..x. � d : ., ., i Sunset \ r ' _6.5 Tc 1 ! / . , : _ -- - 4 - z 1 POI") . i "'", - qi ••• '-' ..; / V s ,t ,..... ii fr. ,,, j k , . 4,... - - .... . a .. Oli , r . �� `' s .- '- m i . ' { * it Ai .�� O / / ey n` ,f s� 4 - I .� J t fff"""» 15W a rminr ' X �� iE Y � �� i ^eRp, / l -' (4..., ! I �.. T 5(N B Rs U 1` 1 c .m L ' - Mark ,� �T� Imo` ■ �9w Z f ',.1 . .I sl i 1... \ i d ' f ~ *� `, st, .1' t,. Jla , �- . -___ -- - - -- i g ; : , — 11 •• taa � � ' 1 r. .I... II - Y £ i .. , = � IW�� s_ =di ` ., r ' ..*5-rit174�,. la IN a aa. I ii- / /.- 1. " � y r T {Y s+ ai • : , a _ • a 7:%''',..";:. - e 1 � - Source.' Metro Metroscope, Metro 117 2008: Metro RLIS I� W 3 '. itliwo' �i ' J7f via . d P • ;sw mil nom. Ivd C +) r ' • �i " � ..4 , , . ': : di iiI ja .1, `fa , ' add ., to .�. ,--" w , ' ° . - y s'. 1 a ' t r Employment density l . v ; l ff t $, .. '; ' rs " liar t st n 1 °�a` ' 4 a '1 sal aims— � • .- -- l i iI1 i , 3W - ir'd _ ' � la P •,, .. - �1 ii 1-7 -, . *i ¢tw: G pi, 'k A -v \ F., . . -- tn - 1 T 4 il *WV f . No :- . aaa ...r r -i-pf _,., • 1-°' =g ` '' '''' as�® 0 - ip-4, ` = � - I s x ,- . r r + C �'K 1{ _ .1 Murray /Scholls TC ` „ ,, -11)1 x � AP 1 12* • \ t� r te. , ` _ n c, .�� SW-Mcdol e '.n ._. i T -..r % G - " .. S 1---.4-- Bult Mcuntaln ) � L 1 ruse�Wa = '- + : � Aa }t 7 '` _ Bomta_.R p C � i to . ! ` s 1- . �conn \ a � . 1 3 ` ej eR ` L , _ { .swD h ' m �d.. - 70- Lake G ro✓a T I -- � - t ity TC - , � P si f. 11W r' ,, � 5 _ i aw _ •, EMME31. t r + Rib • . , � ad on Fin 2 • , � e .. �- _, 41 1 y� 0,1 Source Metro, Metroscope, 21I :, Metro, RTP, /I :: Metro, RLIS Transit Service Land use Ridership and Capacity — Bus line - 15 minute or better service PM Peak 2 hour transit Ridership to capacity — Bus line 30 minute or better service Q Employment areas ridership (symbol size) ratio (symbol color) Q Industrial areas «« Light rail transit 1000 0.6+ +* Streetcar d Urban centers Q Transit centers o Parks, open spaces 500 - 1000 0.3 - 0.6 O Rail transit stations Q Schools 250 - 500 0.1 - 0.3 © Park & Ride I 0 - 250 * 0 - 0.1 Quick facts 65,594 Households 120,599 Jobs 14.1% Households in 2040 regional and town centers 29.3% Jobs in 2040 regional and town centers 33.0% Households covered by peak premium transit 50.2% Jobs covered by peak premium transit 150 Mobility corridor atlas I Corridor 19 Regional bike system facilities and gaps Bicycle system b ui. , ; 14 CI z , F r ` I --...- Bike Network Gaps' '- Bike Boulevards 2 Cedar Mill TC I I _ , ss �rcd Bike lane --� Regional multi use path Land use Sunset m 5 F bit r ., r� s N� $J b Urban centers • s" F '4 , L, '" - -- 4a., ‹ -, l , 5unserf'i` d Parks, open spaces ,a, 4d „, r- � _ _ Q Schools U I Areas in the network with insufficient data are - SW Fo on kd indicated by black lines (,■) ` , \.. 5W" RTP Bike System facilities have black outlines. if a.•,, „„,,,, Beaverton Sy r rer 9 — RC sW At r ; H; I;dor< rnvv Ral igh ill ....,.; /MI Qf' -�`� HillS TC e g y The Regional Bike S stem Facilities and „Q- W S Cn n ron Rd Gaps map compares the network of • W -Allen Blvd built bicycle facilities with the network Y SW Days Rd - " efo117 - -- envisioned in the RTP to identify service S ` T SIN Denn v ,' gaps. Many of the arterials in this corridor SW Ho t Rd' SW ;/+ Imam a, 131v have bike lanes, although some key gaps SbV G ard en Home Rd . e` - _ _. o •f`' remain. The Fanno Creek multi -use path accommodates north -south bike travel from - _ , ,•-■=,\‘' j south of SW Allen Blvd to SW Bonita Rd. " SW roam n Sr - - •,, lors Rr Q S`" G` '-, A primary function of the RTP bike system . SSA 6VeirRd "` £ ' � ` is to serve 2040 Target areas, such as the \ RC West Beaverton and Washington Square regional J Porifland T si 5°' - centers and the Cedar Mill, Murray /Scholls, Raleigh Hills, Sunset and Tigard town r Sch :Hs :' . -, ' ;� ® i s m Ker centers, which are moderately served by Murray / C a TC, - �1 , 3 Tigard TC R _ existing bicycle routes but still have key 1 W Wo a —i � I 0 c L , ` • (''' 0i u gaps. SW Goade 5[ SW M ..nald Sr Kr Woy -•_± Bull Mounram -' it -- - • - -. _ o Quick facts -- y „ p 5W Bonito Rd it 0 Bonita Rd o - Y Q: o . - ll 57 Bikeway network miles ( 200: a s - _ K n . s� Grove TC 57 Miles of bike lanes - 5.. - C 1 Bend Iy A LL' I r hon Rd Y ,,D,..1 — Miles of bicycle boulevards y , Metro2008 � � e u AN t M +. Source' Metrrtegibnal Transportation Plan, 2008,` . ;. Ports tttf!� r S y sV 4. 24 Trail miles 10 Regional trail miles The Beaverton to Tigard mobility corridor includes MAX light rail, WES commuter rail and a number of frequent bus routes. MAX Blue and Red light rail lines connect the Sunset and Beaverton transit centers. WES commuter rail provides a.m. and p.m. peak train service between Beaverton transit center and Wilsonville. WES shares track with Portland and Western railroad. Bus lines with 15- and 30- minute bus service run along SW Cedar Hills/Hall Blvd, SW Murray Blvd and SW Scholls Ferry Rd. These routes connect Beaverton and Washington Square regional centers and Cedar Mill, Murray /Scholls, Raleigh Hills, Sunset and Tigard town centers. On a few lines, transit ridership to service capacity exceeds 30% in the southbound direction. Draft 1.0 151 Regional pedestrian system facilities and gaps sidewalk System v rt11 i — Exisiting sidewalk' � 1 r; Z . ® Sidewalk gap , _ ' r �' Regional multi use path I! I j Cedar Mill TC - - - „ r � -- - , ; 1 - I Proposed regional multi -use path Sunset Inside Pedestrian Districts ` -TC a;% — Exisiting Sidewalk 9 ' '� • .�v: 5 - — Sidewalk gap �`�. onset: W y II i , / ` I Via\ o -• _ ` .-•• Light rail transit �a • �aao . , 8 — Streetcar s � � O Transit centers ! u r 0 Rail transit stations .'- - • Iris, ...Q ,Be ` o y , N try ... Land use s � an Aga �jf�� p ®„ d RTP Pedestrian Districts N [s ir ” • 11 r� !7 CO R �r'niy Rd .. Slb'e!rcert H;l!:dnle 11,, ' Schools v ° it 1 m p ' o Raleigh Hills?TC 5'' Q Parks, open spaces gp 3 l' "'.u. , - ' .. -1, 0 Pedestrian overcrossing y is ' • SW Verm.ut St's 'Along 30- minute or better transit service. Mae t n 1�1 tr r ' n - I t 2 Less than 100% on both sides .�..��,[ryy[i 4 15;" • nn - Rd -r ' 3 Pedestrian Districts are 2040 centers and Station Communities. S t Hort Hd3;-., ;I -.~ ' - I density ` ; �, - West `° 1 , 1 • i . Portland T6 „ -- . Rd _ , „ W , a s h i n gton ` - I _ (41, ' Q� , .; ' ,_ 1 „,,,,„,,..,__..„ ' Square - J , ' . A . • ti� 1 "Fe, OM i Murray /Scholls TCra sc” Tiga .‘,. 8ri f . ` ` j eisk n 1.,,, r , ,.,, . - M St - n * S0 G arde s, SU h•c durio . S- `.. Krus l • S 1 - - S Bo n i to R A Area- c .a13I, lit ( � g t • •' 3 �n � ''�, .� . , c -? Lake GroveTC �� -*. 'r SW Durhnm FA • S •- / Or ” r - r LI,$y ^ t -_. King CItyTC I i lr_ "UVF — r�Lr R SW 1 ow I , ;Washing Ct p Source: Metro, RTP, 2008, Metro, RUS, 2008; 0007; 2008 The Regional pedestrian system facilities and gaps map identifies missing Quick facts sidewalks on RTP Transit/mixed use corridors and in Pedestrian districts. Sidewalks Sidewalks on the parallel arterials are largely complete, with the exception of SW Scholls Ferry Rd. Some fairly significant gaps in the regional and town center 47.4% Completed in RTP ped. districts sidewalk networks remain. In some places, the discontinuous local street grid 71.2% Completed in RTP ped. corridors diminishes access to transit service and neighborhood destinations. 72.6% Completed along 30 minute or better bus service The Sidewalk and trail density map demonstrates the completeness of the pedestrian network across the corridor. This corridor demonstrates a largely fairly complete local sidewalk network west of Hwy 217 and an incomplete network to the east. 152 Mobility corridor atlas 1 Corridor 19 Tigard/Tualatin to Sherwood The Tualatin to Wilsonville C orridor . . ,ui r e5 , - -_z 5 _ 0 G' Washington 7, yet j, _ _- mobility corridor encompasses O 2 sw 0te,r Rd ' s quat RC $y 7'') West, 99W, parallel arterials, as z I ? Por tland T/ Pc1 i _ well as bus service and bic ycle routes that support vc), - r Regional Transportation Plan 5i ' I � �� s " .. ' 4. — movement in and through Street and Throughway System Ng -rd ~ R� ® Principal arterial (f T Gray /scholls Tc ` , 3 Is- the corridor. 99E supports wy) :4 3 to ■ Principal arterial (hwy) 1 ) . inter and intrareg o Major arterial 45 I__ (' sr m ,�,,r , travel inside the region and o Minor arterial bw� Bull Mount S ' Ga ar dr St r -�•, ? 2Z` r Collector of --'Q Rd _ — 5 C o ",'' through the Willamette Valle ( \ — g Y regional significance of �' Rural arterial °M,, SW 72nd/Boones Ferry/ (urban -to- urban) 1 -- 3 �I 6 - Tualatin- Sherwood Rd, SW o Rural arterial } e nd - K SW urn.rit R I "; lakes\ (farm to- market) city rC Hall Blvd, and SW Scholls 4-1... 4-1... Light rail transit a .� - - TC o :, .Li I `�I +-r Streetcar L'' � Ferry/Roy Rogers Rd are key (i� o' -o -- Freight rail I r� '� parallel streets. Together, these 71 s,--„J 1 i S 7uoln rin Rd .. P g County line 1 mo t!' :I, — facilities provide access to ) UGB ,e / 5v 1�P , I Nube'v 61 Washington Square regional Q Employment areas i P SN Nvbr a st l uJ uala in TC center, five town centers, Q Industrial areas o` F� — =stv Rurro Q Urban centers • . � C ,,�y SI a;e Rc and significant industrial —W Isti F She r od T -. �' _ w • � Z ° jsl and employment areas. The \a Parks, open spaces 31— • • c t <: • • I arterial and collector street a or.e.on St - -\ 1 I.i _. network has evolved from - ' - _ 1 �.. .. I. farm -to- market roads and lacks the t" n -.t Iv - + i TRW ` .- Anna' I GtON Cs • - continuous grid of more urbanized CLACK MAS CO.i ; j ° areas. 1 5W- 8rookmnn Rd - SLV p, ^,y Rd_ / ; s ' Std - W Film 'n Rd rr m ? :� Ir siz - r - -- — -- SW-Pleasant Hi Rd C gill Redder F .', i - - -- � a l • �' L_ SW'Toone 1 _ ;;,-I I / i - _- I a \n ;) v ( , Quick facts derived from Corridor Analysis Zone (CAZ) ---- z J SW�esr Rd'.c w o ,,', Sys 3 I b Q - SW Boeckmn Rd S + bt Advar.re .Rr N �� ,� �` s i ` m 61 Area of CAZ in square miles 3 s\` 1 1 117,269 Population — 1_ ` ' s' it i l • 45,364 Households Soot- Metro R I Land lnfor : '. • ` T 08 i 4 ,` t I e •n Plan (RTP), 2008 Y 13.3% Households covered by 15 minute transit . service Zoning 81,628 Jobs 55% Commercial, 45% Industrial p li pr�� r 28.1% Jobs covered by 15 minute transit service 58 Bikeway network miles � '� 8 Trail miles 011 60.6% Sidewalks completed in RTP ped. districts :- �� 528 Total roadway miles 1111 ` 14 Miles of RTP freeways 5 Miles of RTP highways Corridor anal sis zone (CAZ) 13 33 Miles of RTP major arterials ❑ y ° "' Miles of RTP minor arterials 4% Commercial -" 5% Mixed -use commercial 6 Miles of RTP collectors 8% Industrial 1 Miles of RTP rural arterials (urban -to- urban) __ 27% Single - family residential 7 Miles of RTP rural arterials (farm -to- market) - _L 2% Multi- family residential 449 Miles of local streets I -- L j 0% Parks and open spaces 0 Major river crossings J 52% Rural 51 Intersections per square mile ~ ,-____/ �' 7 1% Public facilities 1 Freeway crossings per mile Source: Metro, RLIS, 2008 % 153 Mobility corridor atlas 1 Corridor 20 Draft 1.0 Motor vel )i 'rc tavel, p.m. 2 -hour peek Volume and Capacity ,r, ; u = Ir " 4 ,�" i mo a � ,' ' = - ; •� 'Q PM Peak 2 hour auto Volume to capacity i . _r Q pee '"' (symbol col • 5 + volume (symbol size rat io s m color) U a 1 r _ T t ti ®i ale r ) % 6,001 - 15,000 0.9+ , CO 0 S i r � ` `� l "' ■ ' ' -'' r r- ' - 1"/ t {{�� ..„ f; ; ` '. 1: 3,001 - 6,000 CD 0.81 - 0.9 J � - I ^ ti i I ,r; h � . 1 ► . ° l � ``, 0 . � ,a y \i',-, a � (4 ; fio ) 1(i tl / P • r 3 - " �~ yin : :r, 01 1,001 3,000 0.71 0.8 • A - _ cvlie r 1-94 -=^ till 7------ � r.: �'• + 5 0 1,000 0 - 0.7 �_ ar amy _ 1, \ ,+ ' bVO J I Brill /Lloi rtn„, - -ria1� �,r, . 1 y Land use r. RJ sr„ . is \ j .' N t � . off Q Employment areas 1 '� i 0 Industrial areas S i • B cr c _ K_ ` .Mourham id, a. -,-! ' c am' ` . ` - City TC } �, b Urban centers e� �^ ,,,,,,,cis. D Parks, open spaces ' (( �` ♦ Vehicle overcrossing E sw ! r ' " Light Rail /Street Car I � `' 1 _ r 1 Motor Vehicle Facilities , • u,, SW "Ny :•rg �° " Main Throughway �,`e'' ,a - inTCJ ► �. • Hwy 99W — � it : , sw„ . � r t � S E s� s� "� '� �` ��`� '� Parallel Arterials 3 dy R c::tt t 151 I;:f31 .ffir71to " _.,..„ 1 ' s " `` a s 1, Ir - , 10 All • Scholls Ferry Rd /Roy Rogers Rd :.y s` ,—NE . ,� t (� 0 SW Hall Blvd . S e r_ec i .p Ore � - -\ Lam :., , L._ --) o d� 72nd Ave /Boones Ferry Rd/ — i1. = � m 1 � _ , Tualatin Sherwood Rd ,re \c t , W- as Blvd y s 7,.. -- - i _m°1 r,,U ETON CO. ,/ I — 3 � 111 I5 -99W Connector (potential) S Br.okmana i i &r ' PM, cy r . ■ ■ ■ ■ • / -- - - - -- /` y. — i SW Day Rd 1 the symbol size represents the PM Peak 2 -hour outflow l P .. 1 auto volume at the corridor's most congested location. (( ` a t `. 3 I 2 The symbol colors match the colors of the motor vehicle `� `" r facilities in the ma and the chart. `, .W PLeasantiyill Rd a G i 1 — SW " omesreo.er R. p / T 0 to 1 � 1 k W r z - 1 ' _�_ � t .� �• 3 I 3I n F �, { I /,...T. m , R. L L 11__&&LL ' - j - 41 ' e--511 J n WAdvance Rd I ` L /DJ � t mo t '‘4 � � I 3 , �- 1 —14" * ` r r �' _lv �l1 dc,,m II Rd 1 1 b s owcee r Rus 2004 Al lb, Vi s rhNrii -- ai XCMo 20Q�; 00or, 2008 Motor vehicle facility performance 1 The Motor vehicle travel map and chart compare traffic volumes and congestion on the main highway and some of 0.9 the parallel arterial streets in the 2 -hour p.m. peak travel C 0.8 period. 99E experiences moderate to heavy congestion southbound between Hwy 217 and SW Tualatin Rd. Many o 0 . 7 . of the arterial and collector streets also experience moderate W to heavy congestion. Average travel speed on 99E falls below o 0.6 25mph, which is noticeably slower than free flow speed. o o.s > • 0.4- 0.3 - l 0.2 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Average Speed (mph) Sources: Metro, EMME3, 2008 154 Mobility corridor atlas 1 Corridor 20 Level of service (volume /capacity), p.m. 2 -hour peak 1 1 . 7 g tan ` �� r^ N r C ,� sw .z ,io•, sr _ :E s� ••„ d `" 2 H:,,, - WMrcoIIsTC ,..'71 �1 T NO i� CI = /ilk - r l'..?? 511 I na,,rAU W Laurel Rd l 3 + � Llel •se 51 Cn �� ! l u'b I {d � , 1/,� � n `F , t g. 5 '� B ull Mounra, SW Mcdannld t SWenrta Rd l � l• i:hirnier Rd .- w ' I • z n Rd v 1 ` / Lake Oswego Ti f • N Aii L ke6re eTR B, I L l -�._ sw foam Rd ., U I.,6 � "tn s,` Yy 2= \ i ro 7 . �r a ,•• I King City TC q ri / \ s � _ @o , _ ? � c „ .f 3 C e,,,„ � � � ¢ a " L S a i I "iv °�g 4 I" F ir; B•rgr,R■l x i I :r SLV rualuL, S�Ja .Si o :tebeau Rd s• R:! Chil H , „�` rti L ; pn �� l ic ' +V,G 9 R!15W Chdda Rd , ,� , '' SdJ uaiatl "`M`, c -- �,_. L 5 9ei5r SW: J z t i ' ' % o- cos � � :.,.,, � 5harv,nud 2A Sl Avery 5[ e o She r o... $ q }.� c L' 5 e✓ua¢r SW B1p n �• �s+r o _ a 1 p ,-N n e AF C ' - o� �3 r l- J � � ,----,,, •` • 54V Chapn,r ' l s h , t Ll ti ;n RC r Z "-- -S I ,C s.^., B,,,,,,,„,„ r SW' Da}' R >i f L _ \ VS � 2 � r * _ t - R! r ~ r ,` i L % V El1,7sen Rd S4V Han =ode, Rd ' '`° ` 0 ;� i R .dtler.Rd I - i _ ti 41 ' - -- ` y � J l i SW Ad,' nncr Rd � I• __ l � ( � ? � I Boeckman Rd t r �' ir ' ,„. t h v, t 4 rile • - s: Metro, EMME3, 2008; •tro RUS, 28 l8; 'DOT, 2008 Level of Service Volume Level of Service (v /c) b (symbol size) (symbol color) Urban centers 15,000+ 21) LoS F (1.0 +) 10,001 - 15,000 LoS E (0.90 - 1.00) + 5,001 - 10,000 LoS D (0.80 - 0.90) Interchanges with 0 -5,000 — LoS C (0 - 0.80) 1/2 mile buffer Level of service (volume /capacity), mid -day 1 -hour peak �jr N 9 = �-_ Tc 1 . r . k ip . , a ( 'L- S� rra Sc .11 TC t � �`OM , 0 - ap�.� R Mu y • Tiga�B TC�� s JO • 7o eG F ._: . A Av ° ��L ► Lake O' wego L ,. s'`�L'•k_'.roue %C • e -' ~- King fli,ty TC - s woar n qi r ' 04 ,0, / aNit %� SW ,. ,..01 f / • u�l � la � � FCC r - r • L 1 4A � ' 1 s ooCP g .. 4 i t I L ' ', S W TUo w ,g a � >41 Sher ^ a0�Ti ® Y zos 111 3 ` ' * F , �A - .. 11 r � a, �p Nig o „ -3- t. g i ti :dim - � � 1 ' ar�t�J st L' •in`n TiC I a . ! lls•pr i m4t¢•Fa t ,` it t i' sen•Rd C 14M.:, - ID 1 . •- r _ ; .. ' i / r o n 1 r I' 1 e ew -1• •u Metro, EMME3, 2008; • RLIS, 2 8, DOT, 200 r , r N ,F le, , ces: Met 155 Draft 1.0 Flowshed, northbound -- I -_.Sal non Pehda..- ,Creek - Prau e i / •' ' ,,C orners __' ABurlin ton 1 rr - ^ - l ' Vancouver} i Banks I ` �' ' v en Ee9e p -\---- -- -. 26 . North 30 ' (. � . ` _ , os t - ✓ Plains � s, \\ ' � � __ ' ---I jr r- �1 -- '4,--, ` I l `\� ht. " ,j. Camas ■ -- I I� I k . * w r 1 R" kcre . T \ \ \ ' Pa krose •_�- gal , f 1 - i; F ,- `} Oik , ` P ortla n d PI > 4...,....c„: r Grov e' I � l lsb0 o i ' t . 1 j tC p �- M ay roo �. F ir i w, Tro _ - "it-' 1 ' ''correlws .A6 '^ Its l _ �i .H h` }� � xi r - 1--� � � � 4 =1* - � .� � Il � rk �. Vood _ �/ t_ Alo Cedar - Ii; �_ 7 1 � Village � / �'' r ( -� �; rills ' il/ a -�-. - _ � ,�. � ■�, Pa ., Rockiv - 4 na.) a �. Tt t 'YGresliam t erton ; t ■ -. „ I r • w� r t _.,,c_7,-,:--, l� '*r �� R, / \/ ,, (L'.► Raleigh ,.. 1 I t . ti '11'1 Hllz —�.� � �� Gaston f i `,---.1::, L HaPPy�'-' --- : . ..-- r 1 - Milwaukie vau . `" f 1 7,,Tigard` 4 v L \ a ke' , s onny i ue I – King 7 O h s r ' I 1sco-r � \. - �.-�+ Johnson ,Da_ masc 9 ,\, Traffic volumes I '� ` Durham- d -* locks p Clackamas r: -_- ! . i - -4 Grove*,. ir.,* " ' I L Sandy 1 - 100 ` - 7 ual5fin' m Ve Wes t; .Gladstone ,;_,,,,,' 101 500 r Sherwood'' � ' Linn _ z6 501 1,000 v s . \ Q \. "S 1,001 - 5,000 ( ` • (— C i t y #_ I 5,001 - 25,0 Newberg v rWil --- 1 "7- ^� , ti ``° ' © Flowshed gateway b � -' e � \ ,~.Estacada (arrow indicates direction of travel) ■ ' = Ca 1 - � i nb afayette Etadow - \ 1 ` . - Sou s •tr0, V1SUM. Metro, RLIS, 2008 t The Flowshed maps show the volume and flow of vehicles that pass the flowshed gateway of north- and southbound 99W during the 2 -hour p.m. peak travel period. 99W plays a key role in travel between the southwest corner of the region and Portland central city and the Willamette Valley. Flowshed, southbound , \ \ 1 F--,--I-- Salmi Prairie ,,...........__A ` � %� � � A rive r a � yyy pp 1 / �'L� Corners u 1. -i / v� B Iington �a ir r��l) i _-- 1 / 1 \ tVancouver 1' l I \ r /�- \Ranks % Y `�. `o ti!'!Iy=1� I t_ . E reen V - - North' 30 ' 1 �.�� g ..�� ! " gib , �- t - I' a� tai 'Y 7 Camas , 't \ \ 1 ,' r-- 1 a \BIi7 _ ^• , Washougal -__\\ \ i .0 e - \ `:•"��' Parkroze -4- E R kcrek _ I Ceda r "•- - --1 , - - - e_st a 4k 9 oakt Portland . - - ` ew \ / r - G rove ' !H i llsboro - � `R US ~ !!! ii Maywhi .r., Farvew Tro _ �� Park .� �!� oo e , � f_ C o nehus. +" L • • r G1�� % 11 u HI ' Woody _ -- /) . 1 - �{ ; 7j �M Cedar ,. 1 ,iF�`C;, = =t5.2� Rockwood-- viR • /,' r -_ I. i �Y t ■ .'...Hills. i a iram hsonisira� , 1 Aloha • Beaverton � "a'"��Ir� = h �r+,Gr �� I • Raleigh i n /L JT 11.0-0,64,14k,.._ 1 Hills_ to ° ■ f I 0 Gaston / , gro a,,.i, e +� Mllwaukie _ ' ,7- 4 4 e y IV. ) Lake s .� �= unnyside __ i: r'1 ,<_ 'll • Oswe o -1 —I \ L - K'vg , J ohn s on - • ' ` \ Damascus' /Bo ng Traffic volumes l A L".•.- ourr aiw —��s l o l a v k„ ujty Clackamas r , v . \Grove '' r T Sandy Ri ve r rove ) r � \ , - ,i ' \ 1 - 100 .T uatinla W ��`` ' - l ♦Linn �, - _ 101 500 5ke tw d � .. ? I r , , �Q 501 - 1,000 Y_ ` 5� =�e - 1,001 5,000 r i �Y ? � =�cQi City r- \ - _j ° 5,001 - 25,000 N ew b erg 1 ''a _1 \\ i \ `.\ -- -J,L \r-- O Flowshed gateway , Wil / r \ Y y i ' 1 I�EStacaaa (arrow indicates direction of travel) , / \ � � lo w anby % 1 'v _afayette , Barlow 1 \ �,, ourtes. i�Aho, VISUM, Metro, BUS, 2008 156 Mobility corridor atlas I Corridor 20 Truck travel, mid -day 1 -hour volume Mid - day Truck Freight I I - - y / 19#6,,,, y � - - - - — r Bfoc man t -:0,,,;-°' y �1 I - - - - .. -_-,-_.• ., -(- % Truck volume I 1 SW We Rd '11 j / i'71-,-, ; = 1 P Freight Throughways I � r -1 �1 I II d _ _ v R = t - we Main roadway routes Q , I z a ® portla l , I 1 1 Road connectors 1 ` Tig ar c , } MurraylScholls TC s 1 ` ` s ` Main railroad lines 1 — �I G ,i1, 1_o Branch railroad lines and spur tracks I 5d1 sly c, ri sr __ n use I r lVoy B M oun r o ? ♦ - I i- Land use I re, - - . , .. 'IL ' ' e q . ( Rail yards • I / _ - 'I , 1 I i3 _. SWDlrhamRd X1' \ t Marine Facilities - - -- sev reee! eu,,, N'1 Kin • City TC , — • r ' uop r D. ' , / 1 Lake Grove Q Employment areas • � 1 rl __` i.e, i leonlRo : " � , -; -s p Industrial areas ra I - - st.�,1` r, Y �� b Urban centers - - 1 I , wt,Irr,Rd � 11 , �: y o u Rd 1 i ,.. P ° � r .. - . _ _ , �� ' Parks, open spaces - ,..1 - - - -- ete - • lua i SWNvbcrn S } - - -- eri � -I • � � - } - Qt 0 Rd SW 5 z9ert - � W Boflon , a <. 5 " Edv Rd ,� n ', . ° loan SW At ry'$[ i zo5 1 i ii She o odTC i,. . . th , r1 5 _ 1 i Q Q — N f t � ' a I I, - St It_ p `gy i _ 11 I � 1 . 5 Tim , ' 3 - , z4 ' Freight Employment Types ~ SW Brookman tLACKAMAS CO. ; - i f, ' - SW Dot 15 -- cc d \A, t t om. W FI69sen Rd • 1 �� \r S 1''ft dd O 1 z .. 'er Rd ' s ° S ade� RcRc l i Homeste' -- t to o I i t _5 -5� _ �.1 -. - - - I �=� ,____Ws Rd'' II __ �- sLV'BotLmanR J d Ii SW Advance Rd vl C g I r g + , t 1 . II t 1 2 1[ :- _ r.. . � -' � . -]� EMME3etI SW 6Vilso Rd . l 11 1 Mne S S.4U , S& o, /Mr� Reg. Ir et13riFreighh5ystem, 2008 The Freight travel map displays the percentage of truck volume to total volume on 99W and key parallel arterial streets in the 1 -hour mid -day travel period. 6% Transportation/Warehousing /Utils Truck volumes make up a small percentage of the total traffic on 99W between 9 % Construction Hwy 217 and Tualatin - Sherwood Rd. Truck traffic is much higher on Tualatin- 16% Manufacturing Sherwood Rd, which serves the industrial and employment areas and provides 10% Wholesale quicker access between 99W and I -5. SW Scholls Ferry Rd/Rod Rogers Rd also 24% Retail- Services carries a relatively high percent of truck traffic. On the parallel arterials that 35% Non - freight employment serve primarily residential and neighborhood commercial uses, truck volumes fall <1% Natural resources below 2%. Source ESRI, Business Analyst, Feb 2009 - based on number of employees The Portland and Western railroad operates shortline service in the corridor. The rail line connects through the industrial and employment areas and offers the potential for rail service between the region's rail intermodal facilities and the Willamette Valley. There are many at -grade rail crossings of the rail line. 157 Draft 1.0 Transit travel, p.m. 2 -hour peak Household density f _ I � y I it S 1 • Allen Alva - ' I / '`i Q S nrf 1 t Q _ t I _ - 5Lt Denne � Rd 1 ,.. - f ; -. L r ` 1 . . , ipr S I _, LL g th a ; It f 3 1 SIN. Rd - - V � - i � r _ / • L`✓ RI t'r Y ' I I "" Washington 2, 4 1, . t $.:,- ' i � ek , produnim St >y . - li I „ f7JJ N _ SIT L i z _ q o � Ur SW Tnylors ferrylFd Y7 i _i -�,.� Q . � r S4 ua IC z Nr,r R1 f A'.. 9. z I II , Ly c „West Portland TC ' ? a 1 c _: I s iFi r (v` Q T � _ l,-z , . ` I 5 _ _ a fi r— rF L G mss`. Fn ( — Murr /Scholl TC � y i t . Tla illip - g F '...\\'''.. C t 6 f�l k * I I II \ } aA vk / J 4 't h • L_ � st J I .� �:_ u 3Si� " � k 1 �, Kruse k l l i I '� -I - J vBull _ Mounto, S WGaa_ rde s _ ''` � � I Yo`, 0 . .' ! I I r s� . - 1 e, , ' - �: . - I* " Boruto Rd ll.� II --;'I.,,, _ _ _ L� I , a : - 9 — I 4 SW Bonita R,d 'l - cl I - 4 1 I f �� II I i 9 ' -. , � 1:�� r Y 0=1 ; ° T, lake GroveTC g _ .r 4 ' Y ,--,_ _ I s 1 - Y , I 1 0 , OFP IIIF 8 J ., � I i R � 5 N Durhan Rte' Source : Metro Metroscope, 2008; Metro, RTP, 2008 Metro, RLIS sw6c t1e nd KmgCItyTC ,,4-',"' :, I I 2 I A ' I ' ' , ' 46'j t a/ _ a . i. a ° 5 I ' _ - f .. knnRd 4 "r, - -' Employment dens N + 9 eP ✓Cr o 1 j I SW Tualaan R` SW q - -_ � I � En r a�_ ' - 1 i � ew a v 1 � I 4 � ' a � �° — ,____i pp II I _ r- -_ _s.:- 1 7 C h d ds1Rd J I 7. \� � l � .� s / f1 i I c S C hilds Rd = - , SW'ly � , \ 41 1 TualStm , , yber , J I 1 \ I J - � s I : 7 R. S W 5t ' , a_. ff I __ , 1j °� LL •# a R Z 0 S y ` _ _ �I � _ _ : S : _ l _�orlon d Ro _ — 5W fdy R ' v - - r5lh Ave ry St I P -, _ . ( , Sherwood TC ° Sir sw Tuo I j f� . 't �� l r St 0 : : '. 0 1 14 1' -- � - i , r T � ' I I I u �: �.� � 4 0 SW Sunset Blvd � ,.. �, , � I -- - — cR , dl r� I1, TOIV CQ L _ — 3� _,/' � / o r _ a 1 - ` / - _ — W Broo t !,., 1 • 1 - - ' _ _i o � :; - L I_ ` off o cI ,, I - �` =l �J lr. .� i . It, I 5 ,,; - 1 l. - , ff _ . _f J ) - o �, h - -- SW Day R d 3 ! .__ . 4,, I L , ' r / � -- f I ! I , -- to , c' \..c ' ` J , ;•g' + " ` " Elliglen Rd EEE .,\ - lI - ' ` , y r 1 A wr : e � , SW Hornesteyde'r Rd ,� i +` W t .. r , I `_ Q SW i , Taoze 4 -p — - 1 ` 1 _ , ... - / f G I` Je �Ridder Rd f III a _ o c i 1 s� �v- � / 1 r , _Saurce�tetlo 16fME 20(18, ig ',c ..p / r y, i9 I Ian, A�p RLI�,'2008 } 4 '}S' ; + .V'rf ti I I — ly wici :r r . _ _, �.._ - _ -- vnlrce d it,...., � ,3 der .� .�L.j Source: etro, etroscope, I.:; Metro, • •, 1,:: Metro, RLIS Transit Service Land use Ridership and Capacity — Bus line - 15 minute or better service PM Peak 2 hour transit Ridership to capacity CO Employment areas ridership (symbol size) 1 ratio (symbol color) Bus line - 30 minute or better service — Light rail transit p Industrial areas 1000 + . 0.6 + y-* Streetcar 1:-,1 Urban centers 0 Transit centers d Parks, open spaces 500 - 1000 111° 0.3 - 0.6 © Rail transit stations Q Schools 250 - 500 411■ 0.1 - 0.3 ® Park & Ride 0 - 250 0 0.1 Quick facts 45,364 Households 81,628 Jobs 7.5% Households in 2040 regional and town centers 12.8% lobs in 2040 regional and town centers 13.3% Households covered by peak premium transit 28.1% lobs covered by peak premium transit 158 Mobility corridor atlas 1 Corridor 20 Regional bike system facilities and gaps Bicycle System „ s , cl- °% ® Bike Network Gaps' 'I Wa 2 r = Bike Boulevards I ^ .1 tt t e,r_ c - S RC , �, r s z j - west —• Bike lane 0 PortlancyF --_4=D Regional multi -use path „ m � , s Land use ■ a TI a r� TC Qi • . REit : U Urban centers Murray /SchollsTC Sw , st �'` a ' v CO Parks, open spaces •••••' 1 ,,- � : hlerrusr S, Q Schools b r' W'''' s Bdll Ak o - SIN oon ,t Svo h 9cd o nn n Areas in the network with insufficient data are . Rd I . FS_t t'o'' _R ct= indicated by black lines (f■b). 1 _ t L;c 2 RTP Bike System facilities have black outlines. • z 1 Ing . ' clt Lake - y Grove Tc1/ The Regional bike system facilities and �� gaps map compares the network of c '. e ' built bicycle facilities with the network SW , `” , ,,e,6 cla _ _ _ - -- _ _ r ; St, r latm Rd " envisioned in the RTP to identify service yo I". -•. _ gaps. 99W and most of the key parallel ' ' , • a� sw Nyee Revs arterials have bike lanes in place. While ' , ` ualati C , much of the planned bicycle network is 1 . _ SWSnncrt St d _ _. r t a q �> - _r I __ ` ° °� SW a,.e sr � -R� complete some significant gaps still remain. St,V Fdv Rd sh - her:vood Rd S\f' ir t r ,,,1:17., r E r'•!nr ~ n s -' The lack of a continuous street grid in the n9e 0 t• , ��. c, Sr c�`4 �, I corridor also i the ability to travel -t / .- wti, einec,F�,-' S a� ° ; ' by bicycle across the corridor. 1 I t A primary function of the RTP bike system << SW Sunset] Rt d ii. ' - is to serve 2040 Target areas, such as the Stt s t i Washington Square regional center and mon C.�iACKAMAS CO. a s. ' s6VD � __ h; the King City, Murray /Scholls, Sherwood, F ' Tigard, Tualatin and Wilsonville town s' , 1 `, S V E/h Rd _�! rerRc, . I centers. The 2040 areas are moderately •SW Pleasant Hill Rd 1 �r 1 Roder 'd I SW Homcateadcr He n dr_ s tt To o l served by existing bicycle routes with key a 0 J. _ - o e . - m o i ., � - ', t ____ gaps in the planned network. e' e I Sri - Si L WtstJall RI . r e �' ,' .6 __� _ CO/ Hoeckmon Rd SW Advance Rd �1 I -, r ' Jr m� fi;; i I o '. , :_f- cuv , v v' • d We Source: Metro gegA3644ranSportation �N T-t son e • BikeiSystem, 2008 The Tigard/Tualatin to Sherwood mobility corridor has limited transit service. Frequent and weekday express bus service connects Sherwood town center Quick facts and Portland central city. Frequent bus service on SW Scholls Ferry connects 58 Bikeway network miles Washington Square regional center and the Murray /Scholls town center. There 58 Miles of bike lanes is no transit service between Sherwood and Tualatin town centers. Transit — Miles of bicycle boulevards ridership is low to moderate relative to available capacity. 8 Trail miles 5 Regional trail miles 3 Local multi -use trails Draft 1.0 159 { Pedestrian accessibility Sidewalk System - —At Washington i -- — Exisiting sidewalk' - 11 's Square RC o,`,, - ® Sidewalk gap Q c 5; 5 „c � / s = /'' s °1 ® Regional multi-use path ., i _ Proposed regional multi -use path g l `" sw ' 1 i � " Inside Pedestrian Districts \R ''Murray/Scholls , '� WestPortland T1 May /Scholls TC — Exisiting Sidewalk _ 1 ` R. 9� — Sidewalk gap / T i g ar d . ti L e ,:'(j ' {" » _ 1 « Light rail transit r. ! ' zi 5 --- Streetca r 1 ti 8a Transit centers L_.„ I , , �- _ 4Y' AJC ionn ld S Kr ` „se - . Rail transit stations _ ail _ ' Gull de S� 5 - � - - a dj „ � r -; G _ • - W 'onito Rd '` Land use g i i o ! ', r �,` d RTP Pedestrian Districts z�,. I - - 3 ' - t - t2 . co, Q Schools "ik : 1. King City TC sw Durham Rd I ■ slake d Parks, open spaces - ' � GrKe,,TC 1�1 .11. • Pedestrian overcrossing 'I '��\`!; 1 --' J •::::::::. .. 1 f ,. ),,, °.Jean •c 1 iv/ kcLio� isrJ; r - r ' . - Along 30- minute or better transit service. -- 0 sw n ,lm„ Rd i - %� c =fin, Na 2 Less than 100% on both sides 1 1 13- 00d q • S�J °.L — S ? : - ? C i r 3 Pedestrian Districts are 2040 centers and Station Communities. _; Rc �� ' ° _, r '� Sidewalk and trail density 1 ai i s Nlber R 1 V Sher . '- r k-- ,� \�" "� Tualatin TC sw corl,,, `• t ;. . r -r r r ecl 1 .. 1 r i --, , �5,' COCIelt 5( - - a Sherw od+T,C r r 4 h , SW Kru �Ra 1 r / t irj / r' It su, t . r a 1 , 5 iimUl , ,rl i a I 3� � � ' s' a �I� �!. 3 . -rt , z --p,, 11-..- SW Brookmon R l� I ._ ` d ��` / I • s SW flli sen Rd _ ^ 7 pp j ' � r j � ` _ _ 0 0a 3 I . f,,, J J V ed0 1 "r Rmstcder Fr. % ou%�y L Topzea .' - --- •- t, o- ' t ' - �P4 � �� vl I� I y c tz 1.;. �� . l •—pia - , SCY Westjall R d `` �s r oeckman_ 1_ --- 9F 3 3 -- f _ J,.,; _,.,. WBR SW govance Rd 4 A \ ` sP $ ri1 „a } F�w� e 1 , •`_� l �r+ ` a t >� I k a ` L • _ � -,wk- g . ,: ! , 1' - _, L_ , ....'__. 3 �dvtlle ' . - _ 114 1708 1 .' T 1 ■ son - s � ` _ r w. 404"C': Metre 7r;:r 0 f RLIS X008; 0D01 200 ( 771 + The Regional pedestrian system facilities and gaps map identifies missing sidewalks on designated RTP Transit/mixed use corridors and Pedestrian districts. Quick facts SW Scholls Ferry Rd and SW Tualatin - Sherwood Rd have sidewalks in place. But Sidewalks significant gaps remain on many arterial and collector streets, and on local streets 60.6% Completed in RTP ped. districts in the centers. The discontinuous local street grid diminishes access to transit and 58.8% Completed in RTP ped. corridors neighborhood destinations. 70.1 % Completed along 30 minute or better bus service 160 Mobility corridor atlas 1 Corridor 20 . Figure 3.7 i �� S . . Illi i 14 6 METRO /2e 6 y 1 ve-ez"( \\ `� b -i PEOPLE PLACES . OPEN SPACES T ` ? �\ I (, _ r � \ , \_��1 . �� f o I� ,„ , •-) , ,,-,.-,„ • , a ''. \ I, -. Va Gtfuvr 10 \ �� North I -9 �/ —. = / • y-- __- j- ..,.. --�, �'tatq i — �� - r– ,,/ 1 t.7 `"� �`:� `/` \ a'". '`°''lSf±tf + a'ro ' = S =. �i/ , " It , J�' Ne z - \- , OAEG v'S N _ S " A AIR .1 % . ,, \ ''\'‘, .„,, .. , - . i . \ ' .. ..") li grieb* Izis 6 ' 101 \ West U ton � � Not, ,� � .�.��/�"�� _ (/C/"S / �Z ir, rrAirfti VerL � r '![ �'� - - , � , r ` !�. , .. � - + �� a - li t milbrpp + Htt sboro ! ��a� ��` . 1 .� ��, _ .' , ^ _ / - en a I gig) , 23., A � r 84 ?NW; — 11ida� ,�� - . 5 � ,, �� _fir , MI i Pornehu��0= -- a _ �_ �� / Woo. 1 —�- �� T . td E .,__,. . ir Dille • ? _r ALLY 1 `' ' b 4 1 1® ��' 1 a r ti i 3 Al; - r 1, 1 c'�rf� BLVD a � o�, 15 • :. v' r y r s t °7 t ririle. t'' t� r tit t �•, {{ � f ' { �� j ( e % � , t ' LIE � The designation of the I-84 to US 26 � ` CENTRAL CITY 19 �9 �� _ _ _ - connection along 242nd Avenue is an Owle . ill � interim designation. The I -84 to US 26 � 0 Farmington '11.111 1 ! 11111111 j i Corridor reg nement plan will identify the el 1 1. Portland Central City to Clark County r ,' �T ' � , �� . i ! auk H IL principal arterial designation in this area. 2. Portland Central City to Highway 217 f) i \ : � / van_ 116\ - I 3. Highway 217 to Salem/Willamette Valley a� -. _ _ _ . _ • _ ce , 4. Portland Central City Loop \) 1 5. Portland Central City to Gateway N Schotls c '� \ �• � � k e �j Da mascu s } : 6.. Gateway to Troutdale 7. Tualatin to Oregon City` '� Ki 1 � l f. � 1 1, 8. Oregon City to Gateway r- n i I. ., , �� _ ' 4 ?, 212 224 - ' `— � I D 9. Gateway to Clark County ` D �" Johnso . _ ,_ . ill 2 : 10. Central City to Milwaukee I Of a . ` I � r� r7 11. Milwaukie to Clackamas i Rivergr• �� 12. 1 -205 to Rock Creek Junction (Highway 224) T alafin i® . �~ j 13. Rock Creek Junction (Highway 224) to US 26 ., i e . � J Barto 14. Oregon City to Carus f 15. Wood Village/Troutdale/Fairview �� .. /.._ / rl to Damascus/Boring _ z + 16. Rivergate to 1 -5 w d o -. 9 - �i J . `c (� . � � f , 17. I -5 to I -205 NZ 18. Central City to St. Helens _ I , erwood L 3 ° � ' in n I ` L ' � 19. 1 -5 to US 26 ��' �� °' ` `t . = a 4‘11 � 20.1-5 (Tualatin) to Sherwood and Sherwood to Newberg ,/ I .0 ri i a 3`F �� ! g a : Ste 21. Central City to Highway 217 2U i , reek 22. Highway 217 to North Plains - _ \ ___ __ _ _ I IL ^, 23. Forest Grove to US 26 f ` \ i i , 14 . .. .. ., City Center Employment -- • i i nvill r —� • Regional Center F', Industrial L I] o ' c . . Regionally - Significant — - d v O Industrial Q f x r� I. Railroad . Regional Mobility Corridor - M : P vARJONO/ P - co,.. ,z--- .3+ ., °� - "� c ,--/ - s -rr' ' ' VD \ • (I:, Iduaaa Ime. moment pe.awi pr•�m. and me not Inwnded b aenuF ...AR .Rpnmento <P n•a - � - - - - - _ : � � Mdes • 7 L anby 1 L . j � ,__ j i , ' .\ ! , Regiona fillobil • F igure 3.7 L ` ' \ , f rl f��` `rch 04: METRO w� \ ." r ,,- , { IN a _ � �� I PEOPLE PLACES •OPEN SPACES \ __ N -7 ,YP \ .? ��i /�_ip/� �� Burlingt•n :Yaks \ ■ R \ � ' ��Iliil t�_5.�� t o --- ---.. � .I..___ ` \ ' / \Ii Vac erg 1� o I \ -� North 1 1 \ , )\ �- ` a , ` ' s • iim i _ c1,1 - \ '',.'� ''�� HeLu-tia � _� , - � \ � i _ 1 �' � ;:;'.:.. oRecory .. . , � ` � �� ''. it \ : _0 11111 \ West Union i � � 1 Verboort \ `o L.----17_, ' jam = 1 r � -� ' �' i l'�l 4IL f.nras \e., �� f , 1 - - ' p �� I I VJ / l�Tr• I I-I 111161161 `1 4. I and �� 7 ■/!I 4 0 ......e ve* - - ® ' ® i I i v D ille �? M A �1 161 � ■ i 15 M Isola � ;a y 9 ) - f 0 � P' `11'a.�. BLVD $: 111111111111.1111111 G am Aiii 0 .- •-•;A.-. ''''. , s.1 WPM. ! � . Beave o r f t' 't 205 ■ glipll'i�` /Fla �l � UM • t 1 . The designation of the I -84 to US 26 �4 • �� ' �� - tl �� __ _ _ connection. along 242nd Avenue is an Orien • CENTRAL CITY p 1 9 2 .0 f ; .a.r ' interim designation. The 1-84 to US 26 _- -_ Farmington s. fth �� ( C reginement plan will identify the lop � - ! WaPP pncipal arterial designation ini this area. 1. Portland Central City to Clark County ` A • r! au ks 4) Vall .y - 2. Portland Central City to Highway 217 Itr5 , i •, 3. Highway 217 to Salem/Willamette Valley 'w... -- ,` a I 4. Portland Central City Loop = , �\ L. ke ' 1.1 `� Damascus :>7vi 1 5. Portland Central City to Gateway Scholis l •s a ��tl i 9 6. Gateway to Troutdale, ' - VP ■1 II . .,-. 7. Tualatin to Oregon City \ K� I t 1 =010. ". '' - ' ink„ ,. « - - ';we'''' _ .1' ' 8. Oregon City to Gateway -�I CI YA 1g lohasa 4 212 22 9. Gateway to Clark County Gu • -. ) 4 Durha id �� , I !� � 1 1 10. Central City to Milwaukee ® . 11. Milwaukie to Clackamas 1 s �. I / 12. 1-205 to Rock Creek Junction (Highway 224) ! i Rivergrove •` �, / Barto Tualatin / " 13. Rock Creek Junction (Highway 224) to US 26 ! ® �/ �' © I i 14. Oregon City to Carus `° Te14144 y 15. Wood Village/Troutdale /Fairview to Damascus /Boring I__ -__ t� i ¢ x i�� ~ i Wes 16. River ate to I -5 ��J a' o , 0 7 17. 1 -5 t 9 -205 t er "Wppd L �` 4 3 0 ; } Ltn *- �i1 �`� L • o 18. Central City to St. Helens I Z} _ 19.15toU526 - - -� / t s / O a, a a E , a le T' -, " •- l L Redta g 20.1-5 (Tualatin) to Sherwood and Sherwood to Newberg t .• t } (reek 21. Central City to Highway 217 _ , w y ,.s } ` ZZ. Highway 217 to North Plains 2 _ i v. 2 Forest Grove to US North i � ` , _I , \ % s ,_ 1 . Il .csi - ''‘ o - fit-wr , ,' 14 2040 Growth Concept . City Center Employment / i LW ' / -------. 47 T. . , ._;, './' ., _ Regional Center "" Industrial o t Regionally - Significant ` t J Industrial n E } a � � ' t✓ � Z Railroad Regional Mobility Corridor 0 - cra n ,{AS co feorm bnn.<crem.p.o�cvn woimsane e..•iw.�, maeameenuYV.vemK aiann>�u „. , - Y ` MARION CO ` ' ,>� .. IIIIIIIIIIIII �bie• i b anby I{ ■ . `•i �• ''' ' . .t ✓ ., r f.. - 0 1 2 4 ------1-""..L'':-' - 'J:_.a. \ A ' l S � c .1 r • v • • CITY of TIGARD _ GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM • City of Tigard r •,;, : : Functional Classification System Transportation System PI • . TAY Es FERRY _ RDr �V07 • •:.: , i — Functional Classifcation al ; Arterial // - I , N Collector - j (_ i - Freeway BEAVERTON p r 1' I, A - Al Neighborhood \ , , : -: ` •, • .'.r ' j F- • < _ -j / Local J 1 I / 1,--:' • • ` r ° 1 Planned TSP Routes • L. 1 . ° ) :� . a ! � _ OAK - r'• I j -' ♦ / / SPRINe�•' �• „,,i.:,:-:-.-.:-:•.-,.- -- i• Arterial ' '.:-/,:- . •1! ? �� . •.•• �.” _ l • � •• • Collector -1- .s.1:....7,','*:.:: _11 - �- w SPRUCE ST � Neighborhood • ••: ' • • OT: • I ' m . ' " Town Center, Regional Center, or Sub Area p 1 \,.. - : o e o , 7 Tigard AOI r el .___,_ ® ; I • 1 I - _ ' ` Area of Interest - , • : ( � ��0 ' Qo `� . I : `�� : Urban Service Area ., 11111 �- V � Y ..----\ ® Road Closure • _ I 1 I I I ' 1 ST i 1 ! � /� " s i �� • � i ' i I l , I L ' L R 9� NOTE 1: •.6 S 1 �i ; �; � % ; s r • Transportation facilities in the Tigard Triangle - 11 al MIMI IC• .' ;a, and Washington Square planning areas have 1 / ( o w �F 1 specific design regulations and classifications : ___ ■ C • ti % c' ' !� . ' ^ : r ) ` _ that may slightly differ from those in the TSP for - - - 7 rj •: ! , ' -� .!, j \per a ' - consistency purposes. In these overlay areas, I I o' '( I • , ■ there are specific planning overlay documents 1 l ;-(. SW - � • • ; for transportation design regulations. ■ a RI r ' I r] .••■ NOTE 2: e Fil � � � - ( The exact alignment of dashed lines to address 1 . . , , : • ; ,— I � physical, access control, right of -way and I' I \ environmental constraints in alignment Y � - w _ :•■ � � : •. -. developm MOLN k J .. �• 1 1 J :pill V!' lil ' -1141 ••DH -11\11, lll mss_ EL •� _ : ` II 0 2000 3000 Feet ��.I \ � _Or ST 4000 5 00 I - V - I 1"= 2400 feet Aimigi g,„,..,...,-, • _. IN I ' • ' ' `, 1 .• IWIlki 411 1F117 ‘....„ ;q; • 1 ,, - City of Tigard �� r± ' - -- . \ Ili Information on this map is for general location only and I s hould be verified with the Development Services Division. (— 1 r' J '� , -' -. j ; DURHAM 13125 SW Hall Blvd ,' Tigard, OR 97223 �. �' (503) 6394171 http://www.ci.tigard.or.us Community Development PLOT DATE: October 2nd 2003 Agenda Item # Meeting Date April 21, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Emergency Management Training for Elected Officials Prepared By. Dennis Koellermeier Dept Head Approval: Ci ty Mgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL No action is required. The Council is being asked to participate in emergency management training for elected officials. STAFF RECOMMENDATION There is no staff recommendation. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY • Scott Porter, the Director of the Office of Consolidated Emergency Management for Washington County, will : join Tigard Emergency Management /Safety Coordinator Mike Lueck in presenting this training to the Council. • - The training is designed to help City Councilors, as elected officials, understand and prepare for their role in the event of an emergency. • The Elected Officials' Emergency Operations Guide will provide the framework for the training. • During a disaster, elected officials might be called upon to: - Provide information, advice, and support to the Chief Executive Official and emergency response staff. - Reassure citizens and staff through their presence and leadership. - Coordinate with elected officials and senior executives from other jurisdictions, agencies, and businesses. - Formally declare an emergency, formulate policy, and take-other regulatory actions necessary to facilitate response and recovery operations and maintain government continuity. • The City of Tigard will participate in an emergency earthquake exercise on April 24, 27 and 28. Elected officials have a role in this event and are encouraged to participate. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None QTY COUNCIL GOALS None ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Elected Officials' Emergency Operations Guide 2. PowerPoint Presentation FISCAL NOTES There is no cost associated with this training. The FY '08 -'09 emergency management budget is $92,000. This money funds: • The Emergency Management Coordinator • Membership dues to Office of Consolidated Emergency Management • Maintenance of the CodeRed emergency notification system • Community Emergency Response Training (CERT) Program • Participation in emergency training and preparedness exercises c 1 Sa' { , i J eS t yr'a 'l n Ite #,_�< 1 s� , ti to x ✓��j n /] e ' tio �' 4 ac a� � w din , , � i �4 f Coun N �� ; II I - °T ` MEMORANDUM • to rte zi • TO: Mayor Craig Dirksen and City Councilors City Manager Craig Prosser FROM: Emergency Services Coordinator Mike Lueck RE: Council Participation in Earthquake Exercise DATE: April 16, 2009 City staff has been training since January in an effort to prepare for the countywide Cascadia Peril 2009 Earthquake Exercise. This exercise simulates a large, offshore, subduction zone earthquake and the resulting impacts. Tigard's focus will be on both initial responses and long -term recovery activities. The exercise will be conducted in three phases. Phase I is the mandated Earthquake Drill on Friday, April 24. This will be an "evacuate the building" type exercise to practice those procedures we would follow in the event of an earthquake during office hours. Council participation is not anticipated. Phase II begins Monday; April 27 about 8 a.m. when the City's assigned EOC staff will report to the EOC in support of the overall recovery mission. We plan to engage the policy group (City Manager, Mayor and Council) based on the probability of an emergency declaration request that Tigard should draft and submit to the county. Possible Council involvement would be by phone and should take about an hour. Phase III begins Tuesday, April 28, 8 a.m. at Sonrise Church at 6701 NE Campus Way, Hillsboro, 97124. About 250 representatives from jurisdictions throughout Washington County will participate in a table top exercise (TTX). This is a scaled -down exercise where scenarios are discussed and action is proposed by the group. This type of exercise does not attempt to be a real time event; the scenario is often interrupted to capitalize on teachable moments, engage in discussions, etc. We understand the Mayor plans on attending and other Councilors are encouraged to attend as well. The Emergency Management Training for Elected Officials that you will receive on April 21 will prepare you for the TTX. The ; opportunity for you to work with City staff in a scenario - based environment will give you ari appreciation for the overall training and preparedness level of Tigard, and a clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities of policy group members during an actual incident. As an elected official, you are encouraged to become familiar with your role before disaster strikes, and to use your knowledge optimize your effectiveness during an actual emergency. Elected officials play an important community role during disasters by: • Providing information, advice, and support to the City Manager and emergency response staff. • Reassuring citizens and staff through their presence and leadership. • Coordinating with elected officials and senior executives from other jurisdictions, agencies, and businesses. • Declaring an emergency, formulating policy, and taking other regulatory actions necessary to facilitate response and recovery operations and maintain government continuity. Should you have additional questions, please feel free to contact me at 503.718.2593. Thank you. • 2 f - jf 7Le fn 44; c ELECTED OFFICIALS' EMERGENCY OPERATIONS GUIDE i i • TIGARD City of Tigard April 2009 Table of Contents I. Introduction I II. Emergency Management Authority • State • Regional • County • City • Special District III. References IV. The Emergency Operations System (people, facilities, organization) V. The Emergency /Disaster Declaration Process: • City /County Level • State Level • Federal Level VI. Incident Action Checklists VII. Personal Preparedness VIII. Key Contacts IX. Media Guide (Tips for working with the media) X. Training Recommendations XI. Glossary Section I - Introduction This Emergency Operations Guide is intended as a reference for elected officials in Washington County and the City of Tigard when preparing for and responding to a local emergency or disaster. It includes important information about the emergency management system and processes, emergency contacts, and an incident checklist. As an elected official, you are encouraged to become familiar with the information in the guide before disaster strikes, and to use it during an actual emergency to help optimize your effectiveness. A "GOLDEN RULE" for every emergency is to: 1. Maintain your composure; 2. Assess the situation; 3. Understand your authority and responsibility; and 4. Take appropriate action Personal and family safety and security should be a key element of your initial situation assessment. Your performance during an emergency will be heavily dependent upon individual and family preparedness. If you have prepared adequately, you will be able to respond with greater confidence knowing that your family is safe and capable of managing on their own. Included in this guide are checklists to help you build a 72 -hour emergency kit, set up a family emergency contact plan, and identify other actions that, if taken before disaster strikes, can increase your survivability and effectiveness. In addition to the actions prompted by the checklists, there are a number of community programs, including the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) program, available to help you and your family prepare for disaster. Once your personal and family safety and security are assured, you can more effectively focus your attention on the disaster and its impact on the community. As an elected official, you play an important community role during disasters by: • Providing information, advice, and support to the Chief Executive Official and emergency response staff; • Reassuring citizens through your presence and leadership; 1 • Coordinating with elected officials and senior executives from other jurisdictions, agencies, and businesses; and • Declaring an emergency, formulating policy, and taking other regulatory actions necessary to facilitate response and recovery operations and maintain government continuity. 2 Section II - Emergency Management Authority State of Oregon A. As noted in ORS 401, it is declared to be the policy and intent of the Oregon Legislative Assembly that preparations for emergencies and governmental responsibility for responding to emergencies be placed at the local government level. The state shall prepare for emergencies, but shall not assume authority or responsibility for responding to such an event unless the appropriate response is beyond the capability of the city and county in which it occurs, the city or county fails to act, or the emergency involves two or more counties. The Governor is responsible for the emergency services system within the State of Oregon. The executive officer or governing body of each county or city of the state is responsible for the emergency services system within that jurisdiction. The Governor may declare an emergency by proclamation at the request of a county governing body or after determining that an emergency has occurred or is imminent. When an emergency is declared, the Governor has very broad authority to exercise police powers, regulate commerce, control transportation, remove debris, and more. B. Pursuant to ORS 433.441, the Governor may declare a state of impending public health crisis. Such a declaration gives power to the Oregon Department of Human Services to order, authorize, and adopt reporting requirements, diagnostic and treatment protocols, public health measures including temporary isolation and quarantine, and other reasonable administrative actions, and to impose civil penalties for non - compliance. C. Under ORS 431.045, Oregon State Public Health (OSPH) has full power in the control of communicable diseases. All state and local public health officers and employees, including peace officers, are authorized to enforce rules adopted by OSPH relating to public health and other health matters subject to state authority. D. When the Oregon State Fire Marshal believes that a fire is causing, or may cause, undue jeopardy to life and /or property, the Governor may invoke the Emergency Conflagration Act (ORS 476) and mobilize local firefighting resources. The Oregon Fire Service Mobilization Plan outlines the process and procedures for mobilization and provides a mechanism for reimbursement of costs by the state. The State Fire Marshal can use 3 the Plan, without invocation of the Act, for non -fire emergencies. However, cost reimbursement is not provided in these circumstances. Portland Metropolitan Region A. The Oregon Office of Emergency Management (OEM) has created Homeland Security regions throughout the state but those regions currently have no staff, resources, defined responsibilities, or emergency management authority. Washington County is in Homeland Security Region 2, which includes the four metropolitan area counties, along with Tillamook and Clatsop counties. B. Metro, the area's regional government, has no specific emergency management authority but does have important responsibility for debris management, a critical emergency response and recovery function. Washington County As required by ORS 401.305, all Oregon counties must maintain an emergency operations plan (EOP) and emergency operations center (HOC), and utilize an incident command structure for management of a coordinated response by all local emergency service agencies. Each county may, by ordinance or resolution, establish procedures to respond to or recover from an emergency including provisions for declaring an emergency and ordering mandatory evacuations. Furthermore, each Oregon County is expected to coordinate emergency management program activity with its cities, districts, and other local governments and to be the conduit between local governments and the state during emergency response and recovery operations. A. Washington County maintains a comprehensive EOP and has established a primary EOC at the Washington County Law Enforcement Center in Hillsboro. It maintains a secondary EOC at the county 9 -1 -1 Center. B. The County Board of Health (the Board of County Commissioners for Washington County) is the county policymaking body in implementing the duties of local departments of health. Activities include epidemiology, control of preventable diseases and disorders, and environmental health services. The Director of the Washington County Department of Health and Human Services possesses the powers of a constable or other peace officer in all matters pertaining to public health. C. The following Washington County codes and resolutions establish the authority for the county's emergency operations activities: 4 1. County Code, Chapter 8.36, also known as the Emergency Services Code, specifies criteria for declaring an emergency and gives the Chair of the Board of County Commissioners authority to do so (if the Board is not available). It also describes the list of emergency powers that may be invoked in an emergency declaration. 2. County Minute Order # 91 -354 establishes an Emergency Operations Plan to be implemented by county department heads and agencies, volunteer groups and others. The plan is to be used for the management of all disasters affecting Washington County. 3. County Resolution # 05 -150 adopts the Incident Command System (ICS) promulgated by the National Incident Management System (NIMS) for managing emergency situations. City of Tigard As noted in ORS 401.305, Oregon cities may establish or maintain an emergency management program. If they choose to do so, they must, maintain a current Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) and Emergency Operations Center (EOC), and utilize an incident command structure for management of a coordinated response by all local emergency service agencies. Cities may, by ordinance or resolution, establish procedures to respond to or recover from an emergency including provisions for declaring an emergency and ordering mandatory evacuations. Furthermore, each Oregon city is expected to coordinate its emergency management program activity with its county and to work with and through the county during emergency response and recovery operations. A. The City of Tigard maintains a comprehensive EOP and has established a primary EOC at the Public Works building located 8777 SW Burnham St. It maintains a secondary EOC at the Tigard Public Library in the Community Room located at 13500 SW Hall Blvd. B. The following city ordinances and resolutions establish the authority for the city's emergency operations activities: 1. Tigard Ordinance # 96 -38 establishes an Emergency Management Operations Basic Policy to be implemented by the City Manager. The city is "to mitigate and prepare for unforeseen events which affect the health and safety of city residents in a manner that protects life and property." The policy further should direct that all hazards are addressed. 5 2. Tigard Resolution # 5 -58 adopts the Incident Command Systems (ICS) developed by the National Incident Management System (NIMS) for managing emergency situations. 3. Tigard Ordinance # 96 -38 Also known as the Emergency Code, specifies criteria for declaring an emergency and gives the City Manager authority to do so if the Mayor or Council. are not available. It also describes the list of Emergency Powers that may be invoked in an emergency declaration. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVFB&R) Although ORS 401.305 is silent with regard to the emergency management authorities and responsibilities of special districts, it's nonetheless important that any special district with public safety responsibilities (e.g., a fire district) or one that provides critical government services (e.g., a water district) establish and maintain an emergency management program. If they choose to do so, they should maintain a current emergency operations plan (EOP) and emergency operations center (EOC), and utilize an incident command structure for management of a coordinated response by all local emergency service agencies. They may, by ordinance or resolution, establish procedures to respond to or recover from an emergency including provisions for declaring an emergency. Furthermore, each Oregon special district is expected to coordinate its emergency management program activity with its county and to work with and through the county during emergency response and recovery operations. A. TVF &R maintains an EOP and has established a primary EOC at its Administration Center in Aloha. B. The following TVF &R ordinances and resolutions establish the authority for the district's emergency operations activities: 1. ORS 401.305 2. ORS 401.315 3. ORS 401.325 4. ORS 401.335 6 Section III - References Plans City of Tigard's Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) - Outlines operational concepts and assigns responsibilities and activities to organizations and individuals for carrying out specific response functions in the event of an emergency or disaster, identifies hazard- specific actions, and designates lead agency responsibility for hazard - specific situations. City of Tigard's "DRAFT" Continuity of Operations (COOP) Plan - Prioritizes critical services and activities in order of importance for periods of limited capacity characterized by a disaster or emergency situation. It establishes policies and procedures, back -up capability, requirements, and staffing needed to expeditiously restore critical services. City of Tigard's Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Addendum - Documents and assesses the most likely natural hazard threats facing a jurisdiction, identifies and prioritizes actions that can be taken prior to an incident that can lessen the impacts of the incident, and identifies the stakeholders who may assist with implementation of the identified actions. State of Oregon Emergency Operations Plan - Similar in purpose to a local agency EOP but applicable statewide. It outlines operational concepts and assigns responsibilities and activities to state agencies and organizations for carrying out specific response functions in the event of an emergency or disaster, identifies hazard- specific actions, and designates lead agency responsibility for hazard - specific situations. State of Oregon Enhanced Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan - Similar in purpose to a local agency natural hazards mitigation plan but applicable statewide. It documents and assesses the most likely natural hazard threats facing the state, identifies and prioritizes actions that can be taken prior to an incident that can lessen the impacts of the incident, and identifies the stakeholders who may assist with implementation of the identified actions. National Response Framework (NRF) - The National Response Framework integrates federal domestic prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery plans into one all- discipline, all- hazards plan. The NRP is activated for incidents of national significance. FEMA and other federal resources are assigned to support state and local response and recovery operations through the plan. These agencies may activate at or near the state's 7 emergency center and staff prescribed Emergency Support Functions (ESFs) as necessary to meet state and local needs. Procedures City of Tigard's Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) — Describes primary and back -up facilities, communications capabilities, activation processes, staffing, initial work priorities, and operating and reporting procedures. Standard Operating Guidelines Directives City of Tigard's Emergency Management Directive — Identifies the mission, strategic goals, and objectives of the program; describes management policies; designates the chain of command; and assigns roles and responsibilities. Hazard Analyses City of Tigard's Hazard Analysis and Vulnerability /Risk Assessment — Provides a systematic assessment and prioritization of likely emergencies /disasters by analyzing history, vulnerability and probability. The assessment provides the foundation for mitigation, emergency operations and recovery planning, and other preparedness strategies. 8 Section IV - The Emergency Operations System Incident Command ORS 401.305 requires all counties and any cities with an emergency management agency to establish an incident command structure for management of a coordinated response. Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 (HSPD -5) encourages all jurisdictions to utilize the National Incident Management System (NIMS) for all emergency operations. The NIMS adopts the Incident Command System (ICS) as the preferred national system for incident command. Jurisdictions who accept Homeland Security and other emergency preparedness grants are required to adopt the NIMS and use the ICS for management of all domestic incidents. City of Tigard has adopted the NIMS. A. National Incident Management System (NIMS) The NIMS provides a consistent nationwide template to enable federal, state, local, and tribal governments and private- sector and nongovernmental organizations to work together effectively and efficiently to prepare for, prevent, respond to, and recover from domestic incidents, regardless of cause, size, or complexity, including acts of terrorism. The NIMS represents a core set of doctrine, concepts, principles, terminology, and organizational processes to enable effective, efficient, and collaborative incident management at all levels. Using the comprehensive framework provided by the NIMS provides the structure and mechanisms for national -level policy and operational direction for federal support to state, local, and tribal incident managers and for exercising direct federal authorities and responsibilities as appropriate under the law. B. Incident Command System (ICS) The ICS is a management tool which operates within the framework of the NIMS and can be used on any kind or size of incident. It can also be used as a management system for planned, non - emergency events. The primary objective of the ICS is the safe application of resources to effectively and efficiently manage and mitigate an incident. At an incident involving any type of response activities, command, resource control, and communication must exist to ensure effective incident management. 9 • Command - An incident commander is needed to: o Assess the situation and resources o Develop and implement an appropriate action plan o Monitor the effectiveness of the plan o Review /modify the plan as changes occur o Maintain command and control throughout the incident until relieved or hand -off occurs • Resource Control - Resources must be properly directed to maximize their utilization • Communication - In order to orchestrate and coordinate the use of resources at an incident, all members of the incident response team must be linked by: o A well defined organizational structure o Clear lines of communication The ICS provides for effective command, resource control, and communication through the following organizational and operational components: • A standardized and modular organizational structure • Common and standardized terminology • Span-of- control criteria for incident management personnel • An integrated approach to communications • Unified Command for multi jurisdictional or multi - discipline incidents • A comprehensive resource management scheme • A standardized action planning process and consolidated action plans C. Incident Commander (IC) The IC is the individual responsible for all incident activities, including the development of strategies and tactics, the ordering and release of resources, and release of public information. The IC has overall authority and responsibility for conducting incident operations and is responsible for the management of all incident operations at the incident site. In the case of multiple incident scenes, each incident will have a separate IC who is responsible for management of the resources assigned and the information related to that incident. Incident Resources The resources needed for response to local emergencies are available from a number of sources. The first source is the local agency or agencies impacted by the emergency. Those resources can take several forms including people, equipment, and equipment with people and can be applied in operational, advisory, and administrative support functions. The 10 resources may be deployed individually or be organized into larger groups such as crews, teams, task forces, and strike teams. Local resources may also include people and equipment from nongovernmental organizations (e.g., the Red Cross and Humane Society), existing volunteer groups (e.g., Amateur Radio Emergency Services and Community Emergency Response Teams), and spontaneous or emergent volunteers. Contract resources may also be utilized. When the resources of local government are heavily tasked or exhausted, mutual aid resources from other local governments may be available. Those resources can be provided pursuant to pre- signed agreements between the governments, through a statewide mutual aid agreement, or through an interstate mutual aid compact. In widespread emergencies, the use of local mutual aid agreements is typically suspended and resources are requested and allocated through a more centralized system at the County EOC. The system, which links city and special district EOCs to the county EOC and State Emergency Coordination Center (ECC), facilitates consolidation of requests, prioritization of need, and allocation /distribution of resources to areas of highest need. If the Governor declares an emergency for an impacted county, that action makes state resources available to local governments in the county. The state's resources are not extensive, but do include important transportation, military, public health, agriculture, environmental protection, and other assets. A presidential (i.e., federal) emergency or disaster declaration for an impacted county opens the door to an extensive array of federal resources including a number of pre - designated specialty teams and their pre - positioned caches of equipment. Teams for disaster medical assistance, disaster mortuary, veterinary medical assistance, urban search and rescue, mental health, and many other specialty functions are available. Incident Facilities A. On -Scene Incident Command Post (ICP) A field location at which the primary, tactical- level, on -scene incident command functions are performed. An ICP may be collocated with other incident facilities and is often identified by a green rotating or flashing light. 11 B. Local Emergency Operations Center (EOC) The EOC is an established location /facility from which organizational staff and officials can receive information pertaining to an incident and from which they can provide direction, coordination, and support to emergency operations. A Department Operations Center (DOC) is a department -level EOC. Activities within a DOC are focused on management and support of the department's resources and coordination with other agency EOCs. A Fire Operations Center (FOC) is a fire district EOC. Activities within a FOC are focused on management and support of the district's resources and coordination with other agency EOCs. C. 9 -1 -1 Center The 9 -1 -1 Center acts much like an EOC during major emergencies and disasters. It dispatches public safety resources to incidents according to priorities agreed to by the resource owners. When call volume exceeds resource availability, the center must work with local agency EOCs to coordinate response to incidents for which it has no available resources (i.e., lower priority incidents). D. Joint Information Center (JIC) A facility established to coordinate all incident - related public information activities. It is the central point of contact for all news media at the scene of the incident. Public information officials from all participating agencies should collocate at the JIC. Multiple JICs may be established (e.g., on scene, county, regional, state) for widespread emergencies. E. State Emergency Coordination Center (ECC) The state Office of Emergency Management (OEM) operates the state's Emergency Coordination Center (ECC). As the name implies, the center coordinates the state's response to emergencies. Representatives from OEM and involved state agencies staff the center. The ECC coordinates activities with state Agency Operations Centers (AOC), county EOCs, and, if activated, federal agency emergency centers. One of the ECC's primary activities is to identify and provide resources to assist with state agency and local government response and recovery operations. 12 F. State Agency Operations Center (AOC) An Agency Operations Center (AOC) is a state agency -level EOC. Activities within an AOC are focused on management and support of the agency's resources and coordination with other AOCs and the state ECC. G. Federal Joint Field Office (JFO) The JFO is a temporary federal facility established locally to provide a central point for federal, state, local, and tribal executives with responsibility for incident oversight, direction, and /or assistance to effectively coordinate protection, prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery actions. The JFO will combine the traditional functions of the Joint Operations Center (JOC), the FEMA Disaster Field Office (DFO), and the Joint Information Center (JIC) within a single federal facility. H. Joint Operations Center (JOC) The JOC is the focal point for all federal investigative law enforcement activities during a terrorist or potential terrorist incident or any other significant criminal incident, and is managed by the Senior Federal Law Enforcement Official. The JOC becomes a component of the Joint Field Office (JFO) when the National Response Plan is activated. I. National Operations Center (NOC) The NOC is the primary, national -level hub for domestic situational awareness, common operational picture, information fusion, information sharing, communications, and coordination pertaining to the prevention of terrorist attacks and domestic incident management. The NOC is the primary conduit for the White House Situation Room and the Department of Homeland Security leadership for domestic situational awareness. The NOC facilitates information sharing and operational coordination with other federal, state, local, tribal, and nongovernmental operation centers and the private sector. The Emergency Operations System When activated, the Emergency Operations System consists of layered and interconnected field resources, emergency operations centers, and policy coordination bodies. • Field resources work at the direction of the 9 -1 -1 center, an on -scene Incident Commander, or an agency /organizational Emergency Operations Center. 13 The 9 -1 -1 Center (WCCCA) dispatches the fire, law enforcement, and emergency medical resources provided to it by the county's public safety agencies. They do so in accordance with prescribed policies for emergency operations. Unless released to the providing agency or reassigned to a field Incident Commander or an EOC, resources assigned to WCCCA continue to be dispatched by WCCCA based on pre - defined call priorities. The county's private ambulance provider dispatches its resources in response to requests from WCCCA. The ambulance company retains direct control of its resources unless that control is released to an on -scene Incident Commander. Departmental and local agency (city and district) EOCs manage their own resources and operations, support others, and coordinate with the county EOC. The county EOC manages county government operations and coordinates with and supports county DOCs. It also coordinates with and supports local government, regional non - governmental organization (e.g., Red Cross), and business EOCs. The EOC establishes strategic response and recovery goals, performs strategic resource management, and coordinates incident and public information. It is also the point of contact (i.e., the gateway) for all local governments to the state and federal emergency centers. Businesses and nongovernmental organizations manage their own incident activities and coordinate their actions with local governments from their EOCs. At the EOC level (special district, city, and county), a policy coordination body exists or will be established to support and facilitate incident management activities. The Policy Group typically consists of elected officials and senior agency executives with statutory, regulatory, and /or financial authorities. The Policy Group coordinates with EOC staff and, among other things, is responsible for implementing emergency authorities, taking regulatory actions necessary to control public actions and facilitate response and recovery activities, prioritizing the delivery and restoration of government services, and coordinating incident activities with the policy groups of other impacted jurisdictions and senior executives of impacted businesses. 14 Section V - Emergency and Disaster Declarations Declarations Defined Local Emergency and Disaster Declarations A. A "local emergency" or "disaster" exists whenever a jurisdiction or an area therein is suffering, or is in imminent danger of suffering, an event that may cause injury or death to persons, or damage to or destruction of property to the extent that extraordinary measures must be taken to protect public health, safety, and welfare. A local emergency may also exist whenever a jurisdiction's resources (people, equipment, and /or facilities) are suffering, or are in imminent danger of suffering, an event that may injure or damage them. Such an event includes, but is not limited to, the following: fire, explosion, flood, severe weather, drought, earthquake, volcanic activity, spills or releases of oil or hazardous material as defined in ORS 466.605, contamination, utility or transportation emergencies, disease, blight, infestation, civil disturbance, riot, sabotage, terrorist attack, and war. A local emergency can be a small, confined incident such as a landslide or a widespread event such as an earthquake or wind storm. When a local emergency exists, the affected jurisdiction(s) may declare both an emergency and a disaster. The declarations can occur simultaneously or a disaster declaration may follow an emergency declaration. An emergency declaration is issued to implement specific local measures necessary to protect life, public health, or property and /or to suspend rules or procedures in order to expedite response operations. A disaster declaration is used to request assistance from the next higher level of government (local /county /state /federal), to include requesting a "state of emergency" declaration from the Governor and asking the Governor to seek a presidential emergency or major disaster declaration which would initiate actions necessary for local governments and individuals to receive federal disaster assistance. B. An agricultural emergency exists whenever the local agricultural industry suffers an event that causes severe physical and /or production losses. An agricultural emergency may affect a small geographic area or single agricultural sector or impact a larger geographic area and involve multiple agricultural sectors. 15 State Emergency Declarations A. The Governor may declare a state of emergency pursuant to ORS 401. The declaration can be made by proclamation at the request of a county governing body or be made after separately determining that an emergency has occurred or is imminent. During a state of emergency, the Governor may: • Exercise authority over all state agencies and suspend state orders and rules • Provide temporary housing • Control, restrict, and regulate the use, sale, or distribution of food, feed, fuel, clothing, and other commodities, materials, goods, and services • Prescribe and direct activities in connection with use, conservation, salvage, and prevention of waste of materials, services, and facilities • Assume complete control of all emergency operations in the area specified in the emergency proclamation, direct all rescue and salvage work and do all things deemed advisable and necessary to alleviate the immediate conditions • Assume control of all police and law enforcement activities in such area, including the activities of all local police and peace officers • Close all roads and highways in such area to traffic or limit the travel on such roads to such extent as deemed necessary and expedient • Designate persons to coordinate the work of public and private relief agencies operating in such area and exclude from such area any person or agency refusing to cooperate with and work under such coordinator or to cooperate with other agencies engaged in emergency work • Require the aid and assistance of any state or other public or quasi - public agencies in the performance of duties and work attendant upon the emergency conditions in such area B. The Governor may declare a state of impending public health crisis pursuant to ORS 433.441. An impending public health crisis is a situation where a "threat to the public health is imminent and likely to be widespread, life - threatening, and of a scope that requires immediate medical attention." Such a declaration gives power to the Oregon Department of Human Services to order, authorize, and adopt reporting requirements, diagnostic and treatment protocols, public health measures including temporary isolation and quarantine, and other reasonable administrative actions, and to impose civil penalties for noncompliance. 16 C. The Governor may declare a fire emergency and invoke the Emergency Conflagration Act pursuant to ORS 476. Such a declaration gives broad authority to the Oregon State Fire Marshal to mobilize and deploy structural fire protection resources from throughout the state. Federal Emergency and Disaster Declarations The President and a number of federal agencies are authorized to declare emergencies or disasters pursuant to statute and regulation. The presidential declarations are summarized below. When the threshold for a presidential declaration is not met, other federal agencies or departments such as the Department of Transportation, the Department of Agriculture, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, and /or the Small Business Administration may declare emergencies and activate specific assistance programs pursuant to their own authorities. A. An "emergency" is any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President, federal assistance is needed to supplement state and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States. B. A "major disaster" is any natural catastrophe (including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, wind -driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, or drought). Regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion, in any part of the United States, which in the determination of the President causes damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance under the Stafford Act to supplement the efforts and available resources of states, local governments, and disaster relief organizations in alleviating the damage, loss, hardship, or suffering caused thereby. The Declaration Process A. The local declaration process is a coordinated effort between agency emergency managers, legal and other executive staff, the incident management team (field and EOC), and agency elected officials. It is typically triggered by the results of a damage assessment performed during or immediately after an incident. In the case of widespread and /or catastrophic incidents where the impacts are obvious, the declaration process may occur immediately without waiting for completion of a formal assessment. For small incidents where outside assistance is not required, local . elected officials will likely be asked to declare an emergency to invoke specific emergency authorities authorized in their jurisdictional codes or 17 ordinances (e.g., suspension of normal contracting rules). The emergency declaration must specify the time, duration and area impacted by the incident. If an incident is of such a nature or scope that it exceeds the resources available to a local government, the elected officials of the impacted government can declare a disaster and request assistance from the next higher level of government (city /special district to county to state). In many cases, a local government will declare an emergency and a disaster and request assistance simultaneously. When the county receives a declaration and request for assistance from a city or special district, they are expected to provide direct assistance to the local government and /or coordinate assistance from other local governments. If assistance is unavailable or inadequate, the county should also declare a disaster and seek assistance from the state. The county may declare an emergency and a disaster and seek help from the state without receiving a request from a local government. This is the process used when the primary incident impacts are in the unincorporated areas of the county. An agricultural emergency can occur as part of a widespread incident and be included in the disaster declaration of the impacted jurisdiction or it can occur independent of a broader emergency. Such is the case in a severe, but short duration weather event (e.g., freeze) that heavily damages crops, but doesn't broadly impact people or infrastructure. When such an incident occurs, the County Emergency Board (CEB), which consists of local representatives from U.S. Department of Agriculture agencies and other agriculture programs, sends a "Flash Report" to state and federal agriculture officials and conducts a formal damage assessment. If the assessment warrants, the CEB asks the Board of County Commissioners to declare an agriculture emergency and seek state and federal assistance. B. The Governor may declare a state of emergency by proclamation at the request of a county governing body or after determining that an emergency has occurred or is imminent. All requests by a county governing body that the Governor declare an emergency must be sent to the state Office of Emergency Management. Cities and special districts must submit requests through the governing body of the county in which the majority of the city's /district's property is located. Requests from counties must be in writing and include the following: 1. A certification signed by the county governing body that all local resources have been expended; and 2. A preliminary assessment of property damage or loss, injuries and 18 deaths. Upon the recommendation of the Oregon State Pubic Health Director, the Governor may declare a state of impending public health crisis. Identification of such an impending crisis is likely to arise from information provided by local public health officials and medical providers or from an expanding regional, national, or international public health event. Upon the recommendation of the Oregon State Fire Marshal, the Governor may declare a fire emergency and invoke the Emergency Conflagration Act. If the resources of the state are insufficient to meet the needs of the incident, the Governor may seek assistance from the President by submitting a formal request through the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Such a request must include a copy of the Governor's "State of Emergency" declaration and an Initial Damage Assessment outlining the state's physical and financial impacts and losses. 19 Section VI - Incident Action Checklist The intent of this checklist is to guide your initial actions, help you gather appropriate incident information, and focus your attention on the issues most critical to your policy role. You will need the information to better assess the situation and formulate your response plan. INITIAL STEPS Contact Chief Executive to determine if the Policy Group is being activated; determine meeting location if activated Gather personal gear, equipment, supplies Report in accordance with agency procedures Remember that your role is policy- making and support, not operational PERSONAL ISSUES Advise family of destination and means of contact Take disaster kit with you (see Section VII) Take list of important contacts Take personal tape recorder Take identification, checkbook, ATM card, and cash Other things to remember OPERATIONAL ISSUES Assess public impacts Assess impacts on the agency's financial status and day -to -day activities Assess the agency's resource commitment (i.e., facilities activated, department resources committed, and overall resource status) Work with the Chief Executive and Policy Group to reassign personnel to support incident activities and cover essential departmental services LEGAL ISSUES Determine if legal staff has been assigned to advise the Incident Commander and Policy Group 20 Identify regulatory actions necessary to protect the public and facilitate response and recovery activities • Emergency declarations • Chain of succession • Intergovernmental obligations for service /mutual aid • Social controls • Price controls • Suspension or alteration of administrative /financial policies • Other actions POLITICAL ISSUES Identify process logistics: • Policy Group meeting schedule • Schedule and process for situation updates • Press conference schedule and process for public information releases Assist in the development and evaluation of incident management policy Participate in Policy Group as requested Assist in coordinating other activities as requested Coordinate with business leaders Coordinate with elected officials from other jurisdictions to ensure support and consistency in response Provide necessary coordination with regional, state and national elected officials 21 Section VII - Personal Preparedness No matter how prepared public safety agencies are to respond to emergencies, they are never able to get to everyone as fast as they'd like to in a disaster. The public safety agency itself will be a victim of the disaster, will be hampered in their response by damage to roads, bridges, and communications systems, and will be overwhelmed by emergency calls. In view of these impacts and limitations, it's important that all citizens be prepared to fend for themselves in the first hours and perhaps days of a major emergency. The following actions are recommended for every household: Develop a Plan Prepare a plan that address or includes the following elements: • Evacuation — A plan for evacuating your home and office in case of fire or other emergency • Reunification — A plan for reunifying with your family or coworkers following a home or office evacuation • Emergency Contacts — Contact information for family members and an out -of -area contact that you and your family can check in with in case you can't reunite right away • Pets — A plan for management of your pet(s) if forced from your home Obtain Training • First Aid — Attend basic first aid and CPR classes • Fire Suppression — Learn how to use a fire extinguisher • Utility Shutoff — Know where utility shutoffs are located and how to operate them Create and Maintain an Emergency Supplies Kit • Food and drinking water for 3 -4 days; a week is even better. Stock nonperishable items that you and your family will eat and don't forget a can opener. • Temporary shelter in case your home is uninhabitable (e.g., tent, sleeping bag, or camper) • A first -aid kit and a tool kit • A way to heat or cook (e.g., Sterno, outdoor grill, or camp stove) • Clothing for several days including outerwear and sturdy footwear • Appropriate supplies for infants, seniors, and others with special needs • Supplies for pets 22 • A battery- powered radio • One or more flashlights, at least one of which can be used in a "hands - free" mode • Extra batteries for anything in your kit that needs them • Critical documents and contact information (e.g., important phone numbers [utilities, pharmacies, schools] and copies of birth certificates, passports, insurance policies, and other proof of identity and ownership) • Cash (quarters and small bills and travelers checks) • A current map of the area • Spare personal items (e.g., toiletries, glasses, and hearing -aids /batteries) • One to two weeks worth of whatever you can't live without. If you rely on medication, home oxygen, powered life- support equipment, or other critical items, don't rely on pharmacies or other suppliers to be open or able to restock immediately after a disaster. Even when emergency shelters are opened and people can be fed and housed, certain materials may be unavailable or in short supply for an extended period of time. As noted earlier in this guide, the effectiveness of your response as an elected official will be significantly impacted by the confidence you have in the safety and security of your family. 23 Section VIII - Key Contacts All elected officials are encouraged to develop and maintain an emergency contact list with personal and business numbers for key personnel with whom they will coordinate strategic policies and information. These personnel should include: Internal • Agency executive staff and department heads with emergency response duties. Include staff from special districts or other agencies providing these functions within your jurisdiction. - Fire - Law Enforcement - Public Works (Transportation, Transit, Airport, etc.) - Utilities (Electrical, Water, Sewer, Communications, etc.) - Emergency Management - Public Health - 9 -1 -1 • Agency PIO (if not included in preceding items) • Agency EOC (primary and alternate) • Critical businesses (including private utilities) within your agency boundaries • Important nongovernmental organizations serving your jurisdiction (e.g. American Red Cross, Community Action Organization, etc.) • Any 24 -hour emergency or information line and Website maintained by your agency (including recorded information) External • Other local elected officials as well as those at the regional, state, and federal levels • Other important emergency centers (e.g., county EOC for city and district officials and sate ECC for county officials) • Any 24 -hour emergency or information line and Website maintained by other jurisdictions that are likely to contain relevant information (including recorded information) 24 Section IX - Media Guide Experience has shown that major incidents often result in intense media attention from both local and national news agencies. In addition, an informed community can assist local government response. It is also true that a disaster organization which is not a center of information will find it difficult to remain a center of control. Coordination with the media, and orchestration of an effective response from the entire community, can best be accomplished by establishing a procedure which provides complete and accurate information before, during, and after an emergency. Effective public information can enhance respect and understanding of local government, as well as aid in response to emergencies. Information on Tigard's Public Information process can be found in the EOP Section 2 -e. Here are some key proven points to help you when dealing with the media. Why work with the media? You have to. Oregon public records and meetings law requires a high degree of transparency in public agencies. In addition, the media provides the fastest and most cost - effective way to inform and educate your citizens about the work, challenges, and needs of your organization. Most citizens form their opinions of your organization based on news coverage. In a "bad news" situation, the media will do the story with or without your help...you'll probably be happier with the results if you make an effort to tell your side of the story. Type and style differences among the media Newspaper - Provides permanent record of events with the highest level of detail of any medium. Typically has one deadline each day /week. Uses beat reporting system. Often referred back to for subsequent stories and updates, indicating strong need to correct errors. Read by other media. Interviews are typically one -on -one conversations in person or over the phone. Be prepared with a lot of details. Radio - Most mobile medium. Requires the least of its audience. Typically has hourly deadline. Can go on instantly with breaking or major news. Provides short stories...two to four sentences at most. Small reporting staff does most work over the phone. Learn to tell your story(ies) in 14 seconds or less. Television - Where most folks get their news. Has visual orientation. Uses a combination of journalism and show business. Provides short 25 stories...usually no longer than 30 seconds to a minute. Typically have two or three deadlines a day. Conduct most intimidating interviews with a combination of video and audio taping. Wire Service — Supplies newsrooms with stories on a regional and national basis. Stories are produced in print format but can be written for broadcast. Good way to get basic story out to a large audience. Internet — Rapidly becoming a major force in news. Most news organizations post stories on the Web. Many agencies post news releases, as well. Periodic searches can protect agency reputation. What do reporters want? Information — Who, what, when, where, how, and why. Also, "how much" when appropriate. Access — To information in the form of people and documents and to facilities and event locations for visuals. What makes news? News value varies from community to community and day to day. General factors include: controversy, change, issues of broad interest, public expenditures, and compelling visuals. Legal considerations The media have a constitutionally - protected right to cover the news. Be familiar with Oregon Public Records and Meetings Law. At events, remember that the media has the right to be at least as close as the general public and take pictures from there. Public spaces are photographic "free fire" zones. Always have a "SOCO" Every time you interview with a reporter, you should have a "Single Overriding Communications Objective" (SOCO). Ask yourself "what is the one message the audience needs to take away from the story?" Identify the three key facts or statistics you'd like the public to remember. In one sentence or two, state your key point or objective in doing the interview. Rules for surviving interviews • Honesty, honesty, honesty. 26 • You're always on the record, and probably being taped. • Respect deadlines; it's important to get it right and get it fast. • If you're not the best source, connect reporters with whoever is. • Know what areas are sensitive for your agency and when to pass the buck. • Provide equal treatment for all reporters. • Don't assume reporters know anything about your agency and its work. • Stick to confirmed, verifiable facts. Do the play -by -play and not the color commentary. • Deal only with your agency's area of expertise and involvement. • If you can't comment on something, explain why in general terms. • It's okay to admit you don't know something. • Avoid using acronyms and agency jargon. Consider your audience. • Make your point as succinctly as possible, and repeat it as many different ways as you can. • Ignore tape recorders and cameras. Look reporters in the eye and have one -on -one conversations. • Be proactive. Have an agenda for every interview, with key points to make. • Never look up or down when you're on camera. • Never argue with anyone who buys ink by the barrel or videotape by the case. • Stay calm and composed...no matter what. Don't let your reaction to a story overshadow the story. When the news hits the fan • Be prepared. Know in advance what agency policy is on release of information and who is authorized to speak. • Know the law. Oregon public records law, for example, spells out the rules for release of information on employee discipline. • Collect background materials on the agency (e.g., organizational overview, service area, and key statistics). • Don't hesitate to brainstorm "worst case" scenarios. What would we do if...? Watch other organizations in the media hot seat. • Don't overlook internal communications; let employees know what's going on. They are key communicators both on and off the job. • Make sure telephone receptionists have a "script" and know where to refer calls. • Put yourself in the reporter's place...what would YOU ask? • Consider long -term effects, such as litigation. • Release as much information as possible. Be aware that some information you have been provided may not be releasable to the media or public. 27 • If the news is bad (and it's obviously going to get out), break the story yourself and get it over and done with as quickly as possible. • Coordinate with legal counsel, but make sure counsel understands the public relations ramifications of the situation. You can win in a court of law, but still lose in the court of public opinion. • If your agency has messed up, confess and repent. • Focus on solutions, not the problem at hand. • Don't be defensive. Express concern when bad things happen. You can express concern without taking responsibility or assigning fault. For more information The Federal Communicator's Network has posted its 63 -page Communicator's Guide as a downloadable PDF document. Go to www.fcn.gov. "Winning with the News Media: A Self- Defense Manual When You're the Story," written and self - published by former investigative reporter Clarence Jones. The book is available through most major online book dealers, i.e., Amazon, Borders, etc. It can also be ordered directly at www.winning- newsmedia.com. 28 Section X - Training Recommendations Additional information that can enhance understanding of your emergency role and responsibilities is available through FEMA's on -line independent study program. ICS 100, Introduction to the Incident Command System, introduces the Incident Command System (ICS) and provides the foundation for higher level ICS training. This course describes the history, features and principles, and organizational structure of the Incident Command System. It also explains the relationship between ICS and the National Incident Management System (NIMS). http: / /training.fema.gov /EMIWeb /IS /is 100.asp ICS 402 (EMI G402), Incident Command System (ICS) Overview for Executives, is an ICS orientation for executives, administrators, and policy makers. It provides a basic understanding of ICS, unified and area command, and multi- agency coordination to those persons responsible for establishing or implementing policy, but who normally are not part of the on -scene ICS organization. The course also discusses responsibilities and information transfer between executives and incident commanders. http: / /training.fema.gov / emiweb /pub /g402.asp IS 700, National Incident Management System (NIMS), An Introduction, describes the key concepts and principles of the NIMS, and the benefits of using the system for domestic incident response. On February 28, 2003, President Bush issued Homeland Security Presidential Directive -5. HSPD -5 directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop and administer a National Incident Management System. The NIMS provides a consistent nationwide template to enable all government, private- sector, and nongovernmental organizations to work together during domestic incidents. http: / / training.fema.gov/ EMIWeb / IS/ is700.asp IS 800, National Response Plan, An Introduction, introduces the National Response Plan (NRP), including the concept of operations upon which the plan is built, the roles and responsibilities of the key players, and the organizational structures used to manage these resources. The NRP provides a framework to ensure that we can all work together when the Nation is threatened. The NRP specifies how the resources of the federal government will work in concert with state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector to respond to incidents of national significance. The NRP is predicated on the National Incident Management System (NIMS). Together, the NRP and the NIMS provide a nationwide template for working 29 together to prevent or respond to threats and incidents regardless of cause, size, or complexity. http: / /training.fema.gov /EMIWeb /IS /is800.asp 30 Section XI - Glossary AOC - Agency Operations Center - The EOC for a state agency (e.g., ODOT, DEQ, ODF). BCP - Business Continuity Plan - All encompassing term covering both disaster recovery planning and business resumption planning. This umbrella term also refers to other aspects of disaster recovery, such as emergency management, human resources, media or press relations, etc. From the National Institute of Standards and Technology perspective, BCP identifies procedures for sustaining essential business operations while recovering from a significant disruption. COOP - Continuity of Operations - A public enterprise's ability to survive and sustain critical core business operations and functions during an unforeseen emergency or disaster. Continuity of operations is essential for the welfare of any organization in order to mitigate the negative effects of an interruption. COG - Continuity of Government - The principle of establishing defined procedures that allow a government to continue its essential operations in case of a disaster or emergency. DOC - Department Operations Center - A centralized location established during minor emergencies and disasters from which a single department can receive information pertaining to an incident and from which they can provide direction, coordination, and support to department emergency operations including deployed field resources. EAS - Emergency Alert System - A digital technology (voice /text) communications system consisting of broadcast stations and interconnecting facilities authorized by the Federal Communications Commission. The system provides the President and other national, state, and local officials the means to broadcast emergency information to the public before, during, and after disasters. ECC - Emergency Coordination Center - Similar to an EOC, but does not exercise control of resources. An ECC coordinates and supports the incident response activities of other organizations. EOC - Emergency Operations Center - The physical location where the coordination of information and resources to support domestic incident management activities normally takes place. An EOC may be a temporary facility or may be located in a more central or permanently established facility, perhaps at a higher level of organization within a jurisdiction. EOCs 31 may be organized by ICS functions (i.e., Command, Operations, Planning, etc.), by discipline (e.g., fire, public works, law enforcement, emergency medical services, etc.), by jurisdiction (e.g., federal, state, regional, county, city, district, tribal), or some combination thereof. EOP — Emergency Operations Plan - The "steady- state" emergency plan maintained by state and local governments for responding to a wide variety of potential hazards. FEMA — Federal Emergency Management Agency - The federal agency established to coordinate and oversee federal assistance to state and local governments in the event of major disasters. ICS — Incident Command System - A management system used to provide effective incident management through the identification of specific roles and responsibilities and chain -of- command. The ICS utilizes functional groupings of tasks, management by objectives, and unified command. NGO — Nongovernmental Organization - Any nonprofit organization which is independent from government. NGOs are typically value -based organizations which depend, in whole or in part, on charitable contributions and voluntary service. NGOs pursue activities to relieve suffering, promote the interests of the poor, protect the environment, provide basic social services, or undertake community development. Examples of emergency - focused NGOs include the American Red Cross and many faith -based charity organizations. NIMS — National Incident Management System - A system mandated by HSPD -5 that provides a consistent nationwide approach for federal, state, local, and tribal governments, the private- sector, and nongovernmental organizations to work effectively and efficiently together to prepare for, respond to, and recover from domestic incidents, regardless of cause, size, or complexity. To provide for interoperability and compatibility among federal, state, local, and tribal capabilities, the NIMS includes a core set of concepts, principles, and terminology. HSPD -5 identifies these as the ICS; Multi- Agency Coordination Systems; training; identification and management of resources (including systems for classifying types of resources); qualification and certification; and the collection, tracking, and reporting of incident information and incident resources. NRF — National Response Framework - A plan mandated by HSPD -5 that integrates federal domestic prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery plans into one all - discipline, all- hazards plan. OEM — Oregon Emergency Management - The state agency responsible for execution of the Governor's responsibilities to maintain an emergency 32 services system as prescribed in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 401. This is accomplished through the prevention, mitigation, and management of emergencies or disasters that present a threat to the lives and property of citizens and visitors to the State of Oregon. OERS - Oregon Emergency Response System - OERS is the primary point of contact by which any public agency provides the state notification of an emergency or disaster, or requests access to state or federal resources. The purpose of the Oregon Emergency Response System is to coordinate and manage state resources in response to natural and technological emergencies and civil unrest involving multi jurisdictional cooperation between all levels of government and the private sector. ORS - Oregon Revised Statutes - The codified laws of the state of Oregon. PIO - Public Information Officer - The Public Information Officer is the point of contact for the media and for other organizations seeking general information directly from the incident scene or from the Emergency Operations Center. SOCO - Single Overriding Communications Objective - Key public communications point or objective SOG - Standard Operating Guideline - Similar to Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), but typically less prescriptive. SOP - Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) - Describe primary and back- up facilities, communications capabilities, activation processes, staffing, initial priorities and work responsibilities, operating and reporting procedures, etc. SOPs are used by many agencies to implement responsibilities contained in their EOP's. WCCCA - Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency - The Washington County agency established to provide 9-1-1 service and public safety communications for participating police, fire, and emergency medical service agencies and for other governments under contract. • 33 4/21/2009 III 19 TIGARD ELECTED OFFICIALS BRIEFING MIKE LUECK, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR SCOTT PORTER. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CONSOLIDATED EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Emergency Operations Purpose and Objectives NO.Iw r.ono, Discuss Your Role in Support of Emergency Operations Review the Elected Officials' Emergency Operations Guide Provide Background and Context The Focus Incidents Directly Impacting Tigard Incidents Impacting Neighboring Jurisdictions but Affecting Tigard 1 4/21/2009 Your Role Providing information, advice, and support to the Chief Executive Official and emergency response staff Reassuring citizens through your presence and leadership Your Role (Continued) mfr. Coordinating with elected officials and senior executives from other jurisdictions, agencies, and businesses Declaring an emergency, formulating policy, and taking other regulatory actions necessary to facilitate response and recovery operations and maintain government continuity Your Success PAP 11 Understanding Authorities Understanding the System Being Prepared 2 4/21/2009 Emergency Management Authority Mr State Regional County City Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF &R) Implementing and Supporting Plans, Procedures, and Directives Hazard Analysis Local and County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) Local and County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plans and Addendums City of Tigard's "DRAFT" Continuity of Operations (COOP) Plan Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and Standard Operating Guidelines (SOGs) City Directives Hazard Analysis City of Tigard's Hazard Analysis and Vulnerability /Risk Assessment o History o Probability o Potential Impact 3 4/21/2009 Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) Provides a roadmap for operations in emergency conditions Identifies stakeholders Indentifies who's in charge Identifies functional responsibilities across departments and agencies Establishes authorities and limitations Continuity of Operations (COOP) Plan Ability to continue critical public services under any circumstance Prioritizes essential activities Identifies staffing needs Designates alternate facilities Worst case: Pandemic Flu? Earthquake? The Emergency Operations System (People, Facilities, Organization) National Incident Management System (NIMS) o Incident Command System (ICS) o Incident Resources Management System o Joint Information System (JIS) 4 4/21/2009 ICS It's Common Sense It Works Train and Exercise ICS Organization NW I* 4 - . '"Ntikaiiialiebtee..82111:1*-A04 ,4 ' L i ' nd t L Elected Officials C or mt uran Ptle HOm+wn after Mar Command Staff ors a General 1 tCy�sacs F } Staff �, area Incident Command System (ICS) Field Example • 4 Q,0010K::i ttl® w, is 5 r F 4/21/2009 Incident Command System (ICS) EOC Example 4....►. MEANER INCIDENT COMMAND SYSTEM COMMAND STAFF Indd.nt Comm P.M, Infonnabon Officer i Ll.iwn CRCs L _ E.wbons•r Cur Adorn, I GENERAL STAFF I O6 r.Ibnf PI.nnYp Lop Fb.nWAIndn I tlon Section don ogiodc e. arbn {— SUppnmion —Resource Unit —Supply U d Tlm•Un9 :1=3'7'1. MIMS L.w En1«c.m.m _ Coom n TineU it P — � Coa Communto•Oon .-- Publb Wodu —D.mo — Medical — Food — EAGER.. Ground Support ■ Responsible for All Incident Activities Determines ICS Structure Unified Command ti Pre- designated L Elected Ofclals i III Provide Policy Direction and Support Coordinate with other Affected Organizations I CS and Elected Officials... t Elected Officials i Policy Level in support of ...facilitate response Incident Command and recovery actions iiin.i.... k • 6 4/21/2009 Incident Resources PM Iv Resource Providers Resource Types City /County /District Single Resources Mutual Aid ❑ Individuals Non - Governmental o Crews Organizations (NGO) o Strike Teams State /Federal ❑ Task Forces Private Sector State Teams Volunteers Federal Teams Facilities Local and County 911 Center (WCCCA) On -Scene Incident Command Post (ICP) Department Operations Center (DOC) Local Emergency Operations Center (EOC) County Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Joint Information Center (JIC) Facilities State and Federal State Emergency Coordination Center (ECC) State Agency Operations Center (AOC) Federal Joint Field Office (JFO) - FEMA Joint Operations Center (JOC) - FBI Joint Information Center (JIC) 7 • 4/21/2009 State The System Group \ WC EOC "Connecting the Dots" Policy Group City EOC ICp PW ----- 911 DOC ICp / ICP Fire Crew Eng PW Agency Crew The Emergency /Disaster Declaration Process E Local Emergency and Disaster Declarations EI County Emergency and Disaster Declarations State Emergency Declarations Federal Emergency and Disaster Declarations o Special Cases a SBA o FHwA a DOA Emergency Measures (Samples) Jurisdiction se Coney Tigard Beaverton Hillsboro TWtlet eberwuod Authority available • V Establish curfew X X X X Restrict public gatherings X X X X Prohibit vehickNoot baffle X X X X Mandatory evacuation X X X X Close taverns X X X X Order such ether measures... X X X X Suspend procurement ndes X X X X X X Redirect funds for emergency use X X X X X X Commit to mutual aid X X X X X X Restrict sale of flammable liquids Prohibit weaporslexplosives Curtalllsuspend commercial activity Turn off water, gas, electricity Authorize entry to prloale property Limit price gouging 8 4/21/2009 Mutual Aid Agreements Expedite delivery of critical resources Done ahead of time Formal agreement = • • - i Resolve critical issues -- �-= - Address liability and reimbursement Employee Policy Employer expectations tr i il Train employees (what's expected in an emergency) Promote individual and family preparedness Back to Your Role and Your Success Your Role a Advice and Support o Reassurance a Coordination a Declarations and Other Regulatory Actions Your Success n Understanding Authorities ❑ Understanding the System ❑ Being Prepared 9 • 4/21/2009 Before Disaster Strikes... Review Emergency Code /Measures /EOP Review the Elected Officials' Guide Meet Emergency Manager /Incident Command Know employee expectations and policy Adopt mutual aid agreements Encourage /Support plan, procedure and relationship development Before Disaster Strikes... Maintain an action checklist Maintain a key contacts list Develop and implement personal and family preparedness plans Get trained IS 700 NIMS o ICS 100 and ICS For Executives G402 Participate in exercises When Disaster Strikes... Take care of yourself and family Check -in with your availability Find out what happened Ask how you can help Be flexible 1011•14. 4 10 4/21/2009 During the Disaster... Par Stay informed Maintain your role Network and "stump" Think about recovery ❑ Priorities ❑ Opportunities ❑ Mitigation ❑ Sustainability r • 3111— L A �1 Y r"7 r Summary and Feedback 11 EMERGENCY DECLARATION GUIDELINES for LOCAL ELECTED and APPOINTED OFFICIALS October 2008 guidelines developed by: Military Department Oregon Emergency Management telephone 503 - 378 -2911 fax 503 - 373 -7833 24 hour service provided by: Oregon Emergency Response System (OERS) telephone 1- 800 - 452 -0311 or 503 - 378 -6377 tty 503 - 373 -7857 fax 503 - 588 -1378 �`` ` • a s s D ISASTER O REGON ESILIE ICE R � stio as \y �0 ��•� emergency management ,%, 4:k : RE'd 61.1s I owc ASI.t'isG °, MEMORANDUM Military Department Oregon Emergency Management DATE: October 2008 TO: Local Elected and Appointed Officials FROM: Kenneth D. Murphy, Director RE: Guidance on Emergency Declarations Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) is providing the guidance in this booklet in order to assist and expedite the emergency and disaster declaration process. We have included descriptions of the types of information necessary for the Governor when considering a request for a state of emergency declaration or a request for federal assistance. You will also find legal references that authorize response to requests for disaster assistance. County and city governing bodies should clearly identify who is authorized to declare a local emergency. It is recommended that each jurisdiction prepare a local draft "declaration of emergency" that need only be supplemented with essential information on actual impacts should a disaster occur. Appropriate documentation of the initial and projected impacts of an event are required in order to support a request to the Governor for state or federal assistance. Local Emergency Program Managers and Coordinators are provided extensive training and are generally familiar with the appropriate processes to be followed. They also have direct access to OEM policy -level personnel for questions you may have about the process. A basic County Request for State Assistance document is included as Appendix A of this booklet to serve as a model for the format and information to include in a declaration request to the Governor. Additional information is available on the OEM website: http://www.oregon.gov/OMD/OEM/ KDM:jam TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TYPES OF DECLARATIONS Local Declarations State Declarations State of Emergency Conflagration Act Federal Declarations Presidential Declarations U.S. Secretary of Agriculture U.S. Small Business Administration U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Federal Highway Administration PROCESS FOR REQUESTING ASSISTANCE PRESIDENTIAL DECLARATION EVALUATION FACTORS APPENDIX A: County Request for State Assistance APPENDIX B: Disaster Recovery Checklist for Public Officials INTRODUCTION Important questions include: The answers to these questions depend on a number of factors, such as: • What does a declaration do? • Scope and magnitude of the event; • What is the benefit to • Impact of damage and losses; community leaders in • Ability of local jurisdictions to respond; declaring a local • Economic health of the area affected; emergency? • Current status of the local government budget; • Timeframe before the next budget cycle; • What kind of a declaration • Outlook for known threats to the community until should be made? the new budget cycle begins; and • Number and magnitude of emergencies the • What should be requested jurisdiction has already experienced since the of the Governor? beginning of the last budget period. TYPES OF DECLARATIONS Local Declarations Based on local ordinances and state statutes, a local declaration can allow a city or county governing body flexibility in managing resources under emergency conditions such as: • Diverting funds and resources appropriated for other purposes in order to meet immediate needs. • Authorizing activation of local emergency operations plans and implementation of extraordinary protective measures. • Initiating mutual aid and cooperative assistance agreements, and receiving resources from other organizations or individuals. • Providing specific legal protection for actions initiated under emergency conditions. • Setting the stage for requesting state and /or federal assistance to augment local resources and capabilities. • Raising public awareness and encouraging the community to become involved in protecting their resources. October 2008 The declaration of a local emergency can be the first step in requesting state resources from the Governor. Local requests for state assistance must include: • The type of emergency or disaster; • The location(s) affected; • Deaths, injuries, population still at risk; • The current emergency conditions or threat; • An initial estimate of the damage and impacts; • Specific information about the assistance being requested; and • Actions taken and resources committed by local governments (city and county). OEM will assist local officials in developing and reviewing declarations and requests that would provide appropriate essential assistance in a timely manner. State Declarations State of Emergency The Governor can declare a state of emergency under authority granted in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 401. Under a "declaration," the Governor has complete authority over all state agencies and has the right to exercise, within the area designated in the proclamation, all police powers vested in the state by the Oregon Constitution. Under extreme circumstances, a Governor's declaration provides authority for the Governor to suspend provisions of any order or rule of any state agency if the Governor determines and declares that strict compliance with the provisions of the order or rule would in any way prevent, hinder, or delay mitigation of the effects of the emergency. It also provides for the authority to direct state agencies to utilize and employ state personnel, equipment, and facilities for activities designated to prevent or alleviate actual or threatened damage due to the emergency. This includes the National Guard. It specifies that the Governor may direct the agencies to provide supplemental services and equipment to local governments to restore any services in order to provide for the health and safety of citizens of the affected area. A state of emergency is usually enacted by a Governor's Executive Order, which establishes directions to, and expectations of state agencies to use available resources to assist local communities and alleviate disaster conditions. October 2008 Conflagration Act The Office of State Fire Marshal assists and supports Oregon fire services during major emergency operations through the Conflagration Act (ORS 476.510), which can be invoked only by the Governor. The act allows the State Fire Marshal to mobilize firefighters and equipment from around the state and provides for the funding of resources through state funds. It is used only for fires that involve or threaten life and structures. To determine if the Conflagration Act should be invoked, the local fire chief and county fire defense chief assess incident status with the following questions in mind: • Are there structure fires not controlled due to sheer size and /or speed of the fire? • Is a wildland fire threatening structures? • Have all local and mutual aid resources been depleted? • Would mobile support resources be effective? If the answers are yes, then the county fire defense chief notifies the State Fire Marshal through the Oregon Emergency Response System. The State Fire Marshal discusses the situation with the county fire defense chief, and then decides if the situation warrants implementation of the Conflagration Act. Once decided, the State Fire Marshal notifies the Governor, who authorizes the act to be invoked. For more information, see: http: / /www.oregon.00v /OSP /SFM /conflagration information 2007.shtml Federal Declarations Presidential Declarations Probably the most familiar, but not the most common disaster assistance programs are those provided under a Presidential declaration of "emergency" or "major disaster" via the Robert T. Stafford Emergency Relief and Disaster Assistance Act, Public Law 93- 288, as amended. These Presidential declarations can provide funding and /or technical assistance from numerous federal agencies under the coordination of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The Stafford Act provides resources to assist states in expediting aid, assistance, and emergency services, and reconstructing and rehabilitating devastated areas. October 2008 The process for implementing federal emergency response under the Stafford Act is outlined in the National Response Framework. Legal details for implementing the pro- visions of the Stafford Act are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 44. Some Stafford Act disaster assistance programs have a cost - share, often 75% federal and 25% non - federal. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture The Farm Service Agency (FSA) uses the terms natural disaster determination, designation, or declaration almost interchangeably. A request for the Secretary of Agriculture to declare a disaster for a natural hazard event is a fairly simple process. At the request of county officials, the Governor asks the Secretary to make a natural disaster determination, usually following these steps: • If it has not already occurred, Oregon Department Agriculture (ODA) asks the FSA to convene the County Emergency Board (CEB), which is a county organization comprised of state and federal agricultural agencies and local producers. • The CEB convenes and produces a Flash Situation Report, which is the first assessment of damage and impacts caused by a natural disaster on the agricultural sector of the economy. • The FSA State Emergency Board (SEB), which is equivalent to the CEB at the state level, reviews and analyzes one or more county Flash Situation Reports and notifies the Governor and ODA of its findings. • If the findings appear to be favorable to requesting federal assistance, the Governor must within 90 days of occurrence, in writing, notify the Secretary of Agriculture that a natural disaster has occurred and request a determination (designation /declaration) for the event in one or more counties. • The FSA, through the SEB, then has one or more CEBs develop a Damage Assessment Report as a means of better demonstrating the total disaster impact on agriculture in one or more counties. • The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture reviews the Damage Assessment Report and makes a determination regarding which FSA disaster programs to activate in the affected counties. The Governor, ODA, SEB, and CEBs are all notified of the decision. This process will take several weeks to complete and does not require a Presidential declaration. October 2008 Some FSA programs can be made available without a determination by the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture. For example, the FSA Administrator may make emergency loans available to farmers with qualifying physical (not production) losses without an action by county or state government. The following programs can also be activated by the FSA without a disaster declaration: • Noninsured Assistance Program • Emergency Conservation Program • Emergency Haying and Grazing Assistance The FSA has local offices throughout the state, usually co- located with the Oregon State University (OSU) Extension Service, and often with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and /or the local soil and water conservation district office. Encourage your Local Emergency Program Manager to develop a relationship with the local office of the FSA, NRCS, and OSU Extension. More information on Farm Service Agency programs may be found via: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/ U.S. Small Business Administration Small Business Administration (SBA) disaster loans can be made available to homeowners, renters, and businesses by means of a declaration by the SBA Administrator or the President. These low- interest loans are made to help disaster - affected persons and businesses recover. The interest rate varies depending on the availability of loans and other economic factors. Types of loans available are: • Physical Disaster Loans - homeowners, renters, and businesses • Economic Injury Disaster Loans - small businesses only These loans are not automatic; they require data gathering by the local jurisdiction to support the request: • Criteria for a physical disaster declaration are that in any county, a combination of at least 25 homes and businesses have each sustained uninsured losses of 40% or more of their pre- disaster fair market value; • Criteria for an economic injury declaration are that at least five small businesses in the state have suffered substantial economic injury due to a sudden physical event, and there is not reasonable financial assistance available in the area. October 2008 SBA loans may also involve restructuring debt load at a lower interest rate. To be approved for an SBA loan, applicants must show the ability to repay the loan. More information on Small Business Administration disaster programs may be found via: http: / /www.sba.gov /disaster recov/index.html U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) USACE can assist state and local governments without a Presidential declaration to accomplish mitigation, response, and recovery, especially for the flood hazard. With the exception of the rehabilitation program, any other request from local officials for USACE assistance should be made through the OEM Director to the Governor. OEM will work with appropriate USACE officials and advise the Governor on how to proceed with the request. Most assistance requires a written request from the Governor. USACE resources noted here are supplemental to local and state resources. For Indian tribal lands, the Bureau of Indian Affairs will normally submit the request for assistance. Assistance to individual homeowners and businesses, including agricultural businesses, is not authorized. Also, USACE has no authority to reimburse local governments for the costs of local emergency response and recovery actions. The authority for the USACE "emergency operations" resources described as follows is granted via Public Law 84 -99, as amended. These resources are directed at flood and coastal storm response such as: • Temporarily raising the elevation of existing levees with sandbags or by other means; • Strengthening and providing emergency repairs to levees and other flood control projects; • Evacuating people and assisting in search and rescue operations; • Providing materials and equipment, such as sandbags,' plastic sheeting, lumber, rock, and pumps, if USACE is actively participating in a flood fight' • Providing twenty -four hour technical assistance during the event; and • Loaning equipment or emergency contracting of equipment. Sandbags are only available to communities which have made a good faith effort to stock a supply prior to a flood, and only after mutual aid and /or state resources have been engaged. 2 If USACE is not actively participating in a flood fight, federal supplies may be fumished only if local resources are exhausted or will be exhausted; under such circumstances, supplies must be replaced in -kind or paid by local interests. All unused stock should be returned or reimbursed to the federal government at replacement cost. October 2008 Under post -flood response, also known as "Ten Day Authority," USACE can assist in: • Removing logs, debris, and ice jams from drainage channels, bridge openings, water supply intakes, and sewer outfalls; • Removing debris as necessary to reopen vital transportation routes; • Assisting in the temporary restoration of critical public services or facilities; • Providing emergency water —this is limited to 30 days or up to the date of the Presidential declaration, whichever comes first; • Providing technical assistance; and • Assisting in identifying hazard mitigation opportunities. "Ten Day Authority" requires a Governor's request to both USACE and to FEMA. The ten days begin with the Governor's request to FEMA for a joint Preliminary Damage Assess -ment (PDA) and end after ten day or with receipt of a Presidential major disaster or emergency declaration, whichever comes first. Once the declaration has been made, USACE resources can continue to assist, but a non - federal cost -share begins, usually at a rate of 25 %. Rehabilitation Program This program is an exception in that local governments such as diking and drainage districts have a direct relationship with USACE. This program assists local governments to repair flood control structures damaged or destroyed by wind, wave, or water action to their pre- disaster condition if: • The structure has a public sponsor; • Has been properly maintained by the sponsor; and • The proposed rehabilitation is cost - effective. USACE can provide 100% federal funding if the water control structure, usually a levee, was built by USACE, and has since been properly maintained. It is an 80% federal and 20% non - federal cost -share program if the levee or other structure meets USACE standards but was locally built. The sponsor has 30 days to request rehabilitation assistance following a flood or coastal storm. October 2008 Advanced Measures Under this program USACE can conduct preventative work prior to predicted unusual flooding. This may have applications for ice jam removal, snowmelt flooding, unusual flooding on the lower reaches of larger watersheds, etc. There must be an imminent threat to life or improved property. There must also be a reasonable assurance that the work can be completed in time to prevent or reduce damages, and the proposed work must be both technically feasible and cost - effective. Types of assistance can include: • Strengthening of federal and non - federal flood control structures; • Construction of temporary levees to protect life and improved property; • Channel clearance /dredging of federal projects to restore original design capacity; and • Relieving the threat of flooding from possible dam failures by de- watering the impoundment, controlled breaching, or strengthening the structure. Costs associated with removing a measure, or upgrading it to a permanent facility are generally borne by the local or state government sponsor. Conditions of USACE Assistance In many circumstances USAGE assistance requires that the public sponsor agree to conditions similar to the following: • Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights -of -way necessary; • Hold and save the United States free from damages due to the authorized work, exclusive of damages due to the fault or negligence of the Unites States or its contractor; and • If feasible, operate and maintain the emergency work or remove temporary work constructed by USACE or its contractor. More information on USACE disaster programs may be found via: http: / /www.usace.army.mil /public.html #Emergency October 2008 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) The FHWA Program called Emergency Relief (ER) helps pay for the repair of roads and bridges on federal aid highways and on non - federal aid roads on federal lands, which have been damaged by a natural disaster or catastrophic failure. Assistance through the ER Program can be rendered with or without a Presidential major disaster declaration. Authority for providing ER to states can be found at Title 23, USC, Section 125. Highways are eligible for ER funds if: • The highway is classed a major collector or above; • The Governor declares a state of emergency in the affected county or counties — occasionally the Governor will make a state of emergency declaration strictly in order to request FHWA Emergency Relief; • Estimated cost of repairs to FHWA eligible highways statewide due the disaster total at least $700,000; and • There is a favorable finding of eligibility by FHWA. Local government application for Emergency Relief is made through the Highway Division of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT); it assists local road departments and public works agencies with application, preparation of necessary documentation, and in establishing funding and reimbursement mechanisms. One important early step in a local government request for ER is the damage survey conducted by local public works, ODOT, and FHWA staff. This usually involves on -the- ground visits to damaged areas. More information on Federal Highway Administration ER may be found via: http: / /www.fhwa. dot. gov / / / / /programadmin /erelief.html October 2008 PROCESS FOR REQUESTING ASSISTANCE These guidelines are provided in accordance with provisions in ORS Chapter 401. They are intended as guidance related to situations that occur in local jurisdictions which require state or federal assistance. Governor's state of emergency declarations are made at the request of a county governing body after determining that an emergency has occurred or is imminent. Cities must submit requests for assistance through the governing body of the county in which the majority of the city's property is located with the expectation that the county will first try to assist the city before asking the state for assistance. Each event that is likely to result in a request for state or federal assistance must be evaluated to determine the nature and magnitude of the losses that have occurred or are imminent and to identify what local and state resources have been expended or applied to alleviate disaster conditions. If it appears that state or federal assistance may be needed to augment local resources, it is essential that the jurisdiction conduct a quick but accurate Initial Damage Assessment. The Local Emergency Program Manager or their designee coordinates this effort with OEM. It is recognized that circumstances may preclude the inclusion of all of the information listed below. However, an effort should be made to include as much as possible prior to requesting a Governor's declaration. • Specify the area(s) of impact and describe the emergency situation as it exists within the impacted area(s). • Describe the severity of the situation and the effect on lives, public health and safety, and property. Particular attention should be paid to special populations such as elderly or handicapped, that may be less able to manage on their own. • Identify and evaluate the severity and magnitude of impacts that have or are expected to occur in the following areas: • Public safety and emergency services, such as firefighting, law enforcement, hazardous materials response, emergency medical services and hospitals • Communication resources • Health and mental health services October 2008 • Public infrastructure, including debris clearance, emergency response costs, transportation systems, dams and levees, public buildings and equipment, and public utilities such as water, sewer, electricity, etc. • Vital community businesses and private nonprofit organizations which provide essential services to the general public • Housing • Agriculture • To the extent possible, provide supporting documentation of damage, losses, costs, and impacts. • Identify the efforts local jurisdictions have taken to resolve the situation: • Has the local jurisdiction's governing body declared an emergency and implemented their emergency operations plan? • Has the local jurisdiction's emergency operations center been activated? • Has the local jurisdiction committed all available local resources to alleviate the emergency, such as mutual aid /cooperative assistance agreements? • Describe in as much specificity as possible disaster related unmet needs: • What local government resources or assets have been expended, resulting in shortfalls? • What situations exist that require assistance from state or federal resources? Once the local jurisdiction has conducted an Initial Damage Assessment (IDA) and a request for federal assistance is anticipated, the Director of Oregon Emergency Management may request the FEMA regional office to conduct a joint Preliminary Damage Assessment (PDA). This involves a team of local, state, and federal personnel jointly validating the local IDA. Such an assessment will assist the Governor in determining whether federal assistance is necessary, and it could serve to support a request for a Presidential emergency or major disaster declaration. The request and supporting information from local officials must be submitted to the Governor through the Director of Oregon Emergency Management as prescribed under ORS 401.055. If it is determined that local and state resources are insufficient to meet the needs of the area impacted, the Governor may submit a request to the President through the FEMA Regional Director or directly to a federal agency for assistance. October 2008 PRESIDENTIAL DECLARATION EVALUATION FACTORS For all requests under the Stafford Act, FEMA will evaluate the severity, magnitude, and impact of the event, and will evaluate whether the impact appears to exceed state and local capabilities, and whether there are federal resources which may be appropriate to address severe, disaster related needs. Some agencies may provide specific resources without the need for a Presidential declaration through existing emergency authorities. Considering all factors, FEMA will make a recommendation to the President. Federal evaluation will focus on the following factors: Threat to Life, Health, or Safety If there are significant threats to the lives, health, or safety of individuals that cannot be met with state, local, and /or voluntary organization resources, federal assistance may be warranted. For example, if critical facilities are affected such as water treatment or distribution, federal assistance might be necessary if state and local government cannot meet the emergency needs. Special Populations and Considerations Attention will be paid to special populations, such as the elderly or disabled, that might be more likely to face threats to life, health, and safety. Critical Facilities If critical facilities, such as hospitals, fire and police stations, water or sewage treatment facilities, etc. are seriously affected, and state and local government cannot adequately correct the problem or address the impacts, federal assistance may be warranted. Large Scale Disruptions of Normal Community Functions and Services If disruptions of normal community functions and services occur that threaten the well being of an economic base of the community, and cannot be corrected with state or local assistance, federal assistance may be warranted. Technical Assistance There may be situations where there are not significant impacts, but states may need technical assistance, such as that provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. October 2008 APPENDIX A: County Request for State Assistance (Date of Request) To: Governor State Capitol Through: Director Oregon Emergency Management P.O. Box 14370 Salem, Oregon 97309 Dear Governor: We request that you declare a state of emergency for County under the provisions of ORS 401.055 as a result of (type of incident, e.g., severe storm, flooding, earthquake, etc. Include the time period involved, e.g., through , 20 or, beginning and continuing. Describe the affected areas for which assistance is being requested). In response to this event, we have taken appropriate actions under the laws of County and directed implementation of the county emergency plan on (date). (If the county has declared an emergency, indicate when and to what area(s) it is applicable.) Our initial assessment of impacts indicates severe losses and damage to: (Describe the number of injuries and /or deaths, the type of facilities damaged or destroyed, and the impacts the event has had on the public and private sectors. Attach or enclose a completed Initial Damage Assessment Summary Report Form.) The nature and amount of county and local resources that have been or will be used to alleviate the conditions of this disaster include: (List actions: include actions pending or taken by county and other local governments with regard to the disaster.) With this request County has determined that this incident is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the county and affected local governments and that supplementary state assistance is required, and further that federal assistance may also be necessary. We are specifically requesting: (Describe the problems and assistance needed, e.g., " We have a power outage at our hospital due to a landslide, which is also blocking the access road. We need assistance clearing and stabilizing the landslide and also need electric power restored at the hospital." Rather than asking for specific pieces of equipment, it is usually best to let the state determine how it can best help solve the problem.) Requested this _ day of , 20_. Signatures of authorized officials: Title Title Title October 2008 APPENDIX B: Disaster Recovery Checklist for Public Officials Related information beyond this scope of this document is available in OEM's on -line Disaster Recovery Assistance Guidebook: http://www.oreqon.qov/OMD/OEM/fin rec /disaster recover quide.shtml Actions to consider taking before the disaster: Keep a copy of this checklist handy; work on its implementation. Work with your Local Emergency Program Manager (LEPM) to determine which departments and individuals have a disaster recovery role. Then work with your LEPM to develop (or refine an existing) recovery organizational model. This model can be expanded into a recovery plan. At a minimum, the organizational model should include a list of personnel and their roles and responsibilities post- disaster. Some local jurisdictions in Oregon already have a recovery plan; if your jurisdiction does, review it and work with your LEPM to improve it. Impact and damage assessments will be a huge job during and immediately following the disaster; work with your LEPM to designate a person to take the lead on these assessments, and to organize and train the needed teams in advance. Have trained alternates for members of the teams, and for their leader (the impact and damage assessment coordinator). The LEPM may or may not be the best person for the job of coordinating these teams. There are many factors in favor of the LEPM, but those not in favor are the fact that this work may occur while response is still underway, or may occur after days of very little rest for the LEPM and his or her staff. _ Talk with your legal counsel, LEPM, and others about the extent to which the jurisdiction has ordinances in place which will facilitate recovery. Examples might include ordinances regarding disaster area security such as restricting entry and curfew, debris removal, condemnation, streamlining permit processes to the extent allowed by law, waiving permit fees, etc. Talk with legal counsel, LEPM, public works, and others regarding the extent to which the jurisdiction has codes and standards in place which require that buildings and infrastructure built or repaired post- disaster are built in a more disaster resistant way. FEMA's infrastructure repair program ( "Public Assistance ") can help fund rebuilding public facilities to a higher standard in some circumstances. _ Talk with your LEPM and other public safety officials to determine whether additional cooperative assistance agreements (ORS Chapter 401.480) are needed with neighboring jurisdictions. These agreements can provide many resources to assist with recovery, including building officials. These agreements may also provide well- rested people with needed expertise who can give your exhausted staff an opportunity to get some needed rest. Disaster recovery typically begins while disaster response is still underway, and can last weeks, months, or years. Prepare for the long haul. October 2008 Have your LEPM participate in Oregon Emergency Management's Disaster Response and Recovery Course (DRRC) the next time it is offered (if your LEPM hasn't taken this course recently - he or she may have). Identify and train your key accounting and finance staff in the documentation requirements of disaster recovery programs. People will want to return to their damaged buildings after the event. In some cases, for their own safety, they should not be allowed, or should be allowed only under certain conditions. Learn from your lead building official what procedures are in place for restricting access to, and for the post- disaster safety evaluation and posting of buildings. Have your building officials take the class "ATC -20" on post- disaster safety evaluation of buildings. ATC is Applied Technology Council. The ATC -20 process includes a well accepted process for "tagging" buildings with the following designations; "inspected" (green tag), "restricted use" (yellow tag), and "unsafe" (red tag). Have sufficient copies of the ATC -20 placards (tags) printed and widely distributed throughout the jurisdiction prior to the event; you may not be able to make color copies after the event, and you may not be able to enter the building officials office. Some jurisdictions have building officials store these placards at their homes. See: http://www.atcouncil.orq/reports.htm Work with your LEPM and others to develop a strategy for effectively using volunteers post- disaster. Your community will find itself with both organized volunteers (e.g., the American Red Cross and similar organizations) and "emergent" volunteers. Poorly managed, emergent volunteers will be ineffective, probably time - consuming, and possibly a liability. Well managed, they may be an asset in recovery. Have a pre- designated volunteer coordinator, and a plan to screen and assign volunteers who approach local government with offers of assistance following a disaster. Likewise, work with your LEPM before the disaster to develop a plan for the management of donated goods, which can become a huge problem rather than a potential asset. Related: if private monetary donations are made to your jurisdiction, do you have a mechanism for accepting them? OEM has written guidance available on development of donated goods plans. Engage your land use planners in a discussion about community redevelopment post - disaster. While having a disaster is awful, stressful, damaging, even devastating; disaster recovery oftentimes does provide a community with an opportunity to rebuild in a safer, less hazardous way. (Even better, of course, is hazard mitigation planning and implementation prior to the disaster!) October 2008 Actions to consider taking after the disaster: If you have not already done so, consider designating a person to coordinate the jurisdiction's recovery. Depending on the organization of your jurisdiction, needed skills, training, workload, and other factors, this may or may not be the Local Emergency Program Manager (LEPM). Examples: in Washington County following the flood and landslides of February 1996, the recovery manager worked for the Department of Land Use and Transportation; in Crook County and Prineville following the May and June 1998 flood, these two jurisdictions jointly hired a private sector consultant to manage the recovery for both jurisdictions. _ Impress upon your managers and staff that they may not be able to go back to doing their "normal" jobs for a long time. Sometimes people think that when the "response" is over, the disaster is over. This is seldom, if ever true. Prepare your people for the long haul. Take care of your staff. Some of your staff or their families may have been directly impacted by the event. Some of your staff will try to work too many hours or without proper meals and breaks. Some of your staff will eventually face burnout, and possibly physical and /or mental health effects from stress and lack of rest or proper nutrition. Counseling can be made available for both disaster victims and disaster workers. Make sure your managers and staff take a day or two off every once in a while during disaster recovery. Consider establishing regular meetings with your key staff to discuss the day's events and the day ahead. Begin documentation and financial record - keeping immediately; have accounting and finance staff involved in disaster recovery as soon as possible. You may want to establish a recovery committee consisting not only of the involved government agencies, but also some representatives of key outside organizations to guide overall policy and recovery decisions. It may be helpful to modify or expand an existing structure to provide continuity. If you establish such a committee, clearly define its authority and responsibilities, and whom it takes direction from and reports to. Identify a volunteer staging area where people can be screened, trained, and assigned to assistance roles. See also the notes on volunteer coordination. Assess the kinds of donated goods that are needed and issue a press release describing them; state a preference for money and indicate the organizations that can use it. Establish a warehouse for receiving, sorting, and disbursing donated goods. Decide how to distribute donated funds and /or goods. Set -up a coalition of voluntary organization leaders (or, better yet, tap into an existing one) to decide who is most in need and what kinds of needs will be your highest priority. Please also review the notes on donated goods. October 2008 Coordinate the work of your public information officers (PIOs) to avoid conflicting information. Consider establishing an information "hotline" regarding office closures, relocations, new hours, and so on. Also keep this information updated on your website. Do a series of outreach efforts devoted to a single topic, e.g., insurance, mental health, erosion control, the permitting and rebuilding process, etc. These may be covered in a multimedia way such as local newspapers, community access television, website, etc. Via newspapers and your website, publish a list of recovery resource telephone numbers. _ During recovery efforts for which federal resources are being made available (FEMA, SBA, etc.) and in which there are many individuals and families impacted by the event, if you are concerned that other outreach efforts aren't working or won't work, consider asking OEM to work with you to set -up disaster recovery centers (DRC). In addition to the federal agencies providing information at these centers, other organizations involved in recovery can provide information; e.g., voluntary agencies, your departments such as planning /development, building, and health departments, organizations providing crisis counseling or legal assistance, etc. Following catastrophic disasters (for example, a large earthquake), some people may assume new roles; for example, property owners with no previous development experience may suddenly try to become developers; or alternatively, a jurisdiction with a regulatory orientation towards development may find itself needing to court and solicit new development. The process of recovery may uncover philosophical difference about the "proper roles" of the private and public sectors in rebuilding; development of a common understanding may be needed to move forward. • _ Keep in mind that the major recovery decisions hinge on the choice between trying to recreate the jurisdiction as it was, or recognizing the inevitability of change and managing it to create a safer community; a disaster resistant community. Be prepared to respond to media requests for updated information prior to important anniversaries; six months, one year, and so on. October 2008 For more information on the assistance outlined in this guidebook,.the following web links may prove helpful: Oregon Emergency Management http: / /www.oregon.gov /OMD /OEM/ Office of State Fire Marshal http: / /www.oregon.gov /OSP /SFM/ Federal Emergency Management Agency http: / /www.fema.gov/ Farm Service Agency http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/ U.S. Small Business Administration http: / /www.sba.gov /disaster recov /index.html U.S. Army Corps of Engineers http: / /www.nwp .usace.army.mil /op /e /home.asp Federal Highway Administration http://vvww.fhwa.dot.gov/////programadmin/ereliefhtml Applied Technology Council http: / /www.atcouncil.org /reports.htm October 2008 THEODORE R. KULONGOSKI ` �� J " 'fHTHOMAS A. A. BALMER ATTORNEY GENERAL �.;,• .;i Ulir•UTY ATTORNEY GLNER. \I. rl _ M I DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1162 Court Street NE Justice Building Salem, Oregon 97310 Telephone: (503) 378 -4400 TDD: (503) 378 -5938 April 3, 1996 • OP -8239 This opinion is issued in response to questions presented by Richard D. Gibson, Fire Prevention Director, Oregon Department of Forestry, about the authority of police and fire officials to order mandatory evacuation of private property when a fire on forestland presents an imminent threat to human safety. This opinion does not concern public property for which ORS 131.705 to 131.735 provide unequivocal authority to order evacuation.' FIRST QUESTION PRESENTED Is there any existing authority that would authorize state, county or city police or fire officials to order the mandatory evacuation of an area due to an imminent threat of fire causing human death or injury? ANSWER GIVEN Yes. If the Governor declares an emergency under ORS 401.055, the Governor may specifically order evacuation ' of persons from the area covered by the order. Under "home rule" provisions of the Oregon Constitution, local governments also may adopt specific , ordinances ordering mandatory evacuation of an area in a fire emergency. Sheriffs or state or local police officers may carry out the Governor's orders or those authorized by local ordinances. Fire officials and firefighters would have authority to enforce the Governor's order or an emergency evacuation ordinance only if expressly authorized to .do . so by the order or ordinance. SECOND QUESTION PRESENTED Do any constitutional guarantees prevent such orders or ordinances? ANSWER GIVEN No. Protecting public health and safety is a fundamental government interest which justifies summary action in emergencies. A Governor's order or local ordinance ordering evacuation is constitutional so long as the order or evacuation ordinance has a real and substantial relationship to public safety and contains an opportunity for prompt post - evacuation review of the action. DISCUSSION I. Authority to Order Evacuation A. Governor's Authority ORS chapter 401 establishes a comprehensive system for dealing with emergencies that threaten human safety or property loss.' An emergency is "any man -made or natural event or circumstance causing or threatening loss of life, injury to person or property, human suffering or financial loss," and specifically includes fire. ORS 401.025(4).' Primary responsibility for emergency planning and response rests with local governments. ORS 401.015(2). Nonetheless, the Governor may declare a state of emergency at the request of a county governing body or on the Governor's own determination that an emergency exists or is imminent. ORS 401.055. The Governor's powers during a state of emergency are extensive. They include "complete authority over all executive agencies of state government and the right to . exercise, within the area designated by the proclamation, all police powers vested in the state by the Oregon Constitution,i ORS 401.065(1); authority to order state agencies to use their personnel, equipment and facilities to "prevent or alleviate actual or threatened damage," ORS 401.065(3); authority to assume control of all state and local police and law enforcement activities in the affected area, ORS 401.115(2); authority to "[r]equire the aid and assistance of any state or other public or quasi-public agencies," ORS 401.115(5); and authority to "[a]ssume complete control of all emergency operations in the area specified in a proclamation of a state of emergency * * * , direct all rescue and salvage work and do all things deemed advisable and necessary to alleviate the immediate conditions." ORS 401.115(1) (emphasis added). In a 1950 Attorney General opinion, this office interpreted statutory language identical to that emphasized above, concluding that the provision granted sufficiently broad powers to enable the Governor to cope with any condition that may arise in the emergency area, including the power to order the evacuation of any person from an area covered by the emergency declaration. 24 Op Atty Gen 446, 447 (1950). We see no reason to alter that opinion. Among the powers the governor has during a declared emergency is the power to "effectuate the purposes of ORS 410.015 to 401.105, 401.260 to 401.325 and 401.355 to 401.580." ORS 401.065(1). These purposes include providing "emergency services," see, e.g., ORS 401.035, which include "those measures defined as 'civil defense' in section 3 of the Act of January 12, 1951, P.L. 81 -920 (50 U.S.C. 2252)." ORS 401.025(10). Such civil defense measures include the evacuation of civilian populations during natural disasters. Interpreting the Governor's power to include the power to order evacuation from areas covered by an emergency declaration also is consistent with long- standing legal principles concerning emergency governmental action. Government authority to act summarily to protect public health and safety in emergency situations is well settled in anglo- 2 American law. Uncontrolled fire has long been recognized as a serious threat to public safety, justifying even the summary destruction of real or personal property. At common law everyone had the right to destroy real and personal property, in cases of actual necessity, to prevent the spreading of fire, and there was no responsibility on the part of such destroyer, and no remedy for the owner. • Bowditch v. Boston, 101 US 16, 25 L Ed 980 (1879) (discussing city's authority to destroy building in fire emergency). See also 14 ALR 2d 73. If the government has authority to summarily destroy real or personal property to prevent the spread of fire, it surely has the authority to act less intrusively, ordering persons to evacuate an area in order to protect public safety and allow firefighters to fight the fire's spread. Cf. Miller v. Campbell County, Wyo., 722 F Supp 687, 692 -693 (D Wyo 1989), aff'd 945 F2d 348 (10th Cir 1991) • (local government has delegated authority to order evacuation of neighborhood threatened by lethal gases). B. Local Government Authority Counties and cities are political subdivisions of state government. Except as provided in the Oregon Constitution, they derive their powers from the legislature. Powell Grove Cem. v. Multnomah Co., 228 Or 597, 365 P2d 1058 (1961). Home rule provisions of the Oregon Constitution and the legislative policy expressed in ORS 401.015(2) provide counties and cities with authority broad enough to adopt ordinances ordering , evacuation of an area if a fire threatens public safety. . Under home rule provisions of the Oregon Constitution, counties may adopt charters that provide the county with broad legislative authority over matters of county concern. Or Const Art VI, § 10." Non -home rule counties have similar authority under ORS 203.035." 36 Op Atty Gen 1070, 1071 (1974). Cities derive their legislative power from home rule provisions in Article XI, section 2, of the Oregon Constitution' and ORS 221.926.' Emergencies that present a threat to local public safety are unquestionably matters of local concern. Under home rule provisions, cities and counties may adopt ordinances addressing public safety concerns so long as the ordinances do not conflict with state statutes governing the same subject. See Cove Lodge, v. Harris, 134 Or 566, 572, 294 P 355 (1930); Rose v. Port of Portland, 82 Or 541, 571, 162 P 498 (1917); State ex rel Haley v. City of Troutdale, 281 01 '203, 576 P2d 1238 (1978). The essential test for determining whether a conflict exists is "whether the local rule is 'incompatible with the [state's] legislative policy, either because both cannot operate concurrently or because the legislature meant its law to be exclusive." City of Portland v. Dollarhide, 300 Or 490, 501, 714 P2d 220 (1986) (quoting La Grande /Astoria v. PERB, 281 Or 137, 148, 576 P2d 1204, adhered to 284 Or 173, 586 P2d 765 (1978)). Applying this test, we conclude that local governments have authority to adopt ordinances ordering persons to evacuate an area threatened by fire. As discussed above, protection of health and safety in emergencies is a fundamental government function that 3 justifies summary action, including ordering persons to evacuate their property. The general legislative authority granted to local governments under Article VI, section 10, and Article XI, section 2, of the Oregon Constitution and under ORS 203.035 and 221.926 is broad enough to permit ordinances carrying out this fundamental function. This authority does not conflict with any state statute concerning emergencies. To the contrary, it is consistent with the legislative policy under ORS 401.015(2), which expressly places primary responsibility for emergency planning and response with local govemments. Ordinances ordering the evacuation of persons from an area during an emergency in order to protect life or property during the emergency are consistent with carrying out that responsibility. Cf. ORS 401.515(4) (emergency service workers are immune from liability for carrying out emergency services under local ordinances). C. Authority of Police and Fire Officials In the 1950 Attorney General opinion cited above, this office stated "that neither the sheriff or any other officer of a political subdivision of this state" has independent authority to order evacuation of an area threatened by an emergency condition. 24 Op Atty Gen at 447. We concluded, however, that they "may * * * execute orders or process issued by the Governor for the mandatory evacuation of such threatened area." Id. We adhere to that conclusion and extend it to apply to peace officers executing local government evacuation orders as well. Peace officers in the State of Oregon have authority to arrest persons for the violation of state criminal law, ORS 133.235; to issue citations in lieu of arrest, ORS 133.055; and to perform community caretaking functions, ORS 133.033(1). "Community caretaking functions" are "any lawful acts that are inherent in the duty of the peace officer to serve and protect the public." ORS 133.033(2). The chief function inherent in a peace officer's duty is to enforce local and state law. See 16A McQUJLLIN, THE LAW OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS § 45.15 (3d ed 1992) (duties of local police officers); 70 AM Tuft Sheriffs, Police and Constables § 46 (1987) (sheriffs). Sheriffs and state and local police officers have authority under this inherent function to enforce the Governor's evacuation order, or a local ordinance ordering evacuation, by requiring persons to evacuate the area covered by the order or evacuation ordinance, issuing citations or arresting persons who disobey the order. Fire officials or firefighters, however, have no similar inherent or statutory authority. Forest fire wardens have peace officer authority, but the authority only allows wardens to enforce violations of ORS chapter 477. ORS 477.365(1)(d). The fire wardens' authority as peace officers does not include enforcing a Governor's evacuation order issued under ORS chapter 401 or a local evacuation ordinance issued under home rule provisions of the Oregon Constitution. The scope of local firefighters' authority is governed by local ordinance. Local ordinances may give authority to firefighters to enforce local evacuation ordinances. Otherwise, local firefighters have no such enforcement authority. Given the breadth of the Governor's emergency authority under ORS chapter 401, the Governor also may specifically 4 authorize forest fire wardens, rural district firefighters and local'firefighters to enforce the Governor's orders during a declared emergency. Cf. 24 Op Atty Gen 446. II. Constitutionality of Evacuation Orders As discussed above, courts have long recognized the government's need to use summary action in emergency situations to protect public hlth and safety. The most common constitutional challenge to these summary actions is that they violate due 'process guarantees."' Courts generally have rejected these claims. 'See, e g Hodel v. Virginia Surface Min. & Red. Assn., 452 US 264, 300, 101 S Ct 2352, 69 L Ed2d 1 (1981) and cases cited therein; 14 ALR 2d 73. The cases are instinctive, however, in'illustrating what constitutional requirements cabin a government's summary emergency action. For purposes of your question, the lesson of the cases is that so long as emergency evacuation orders and ordinances are reasonably based on a substantial ' need to protect public safety and are crafted to provide an opportunity for 'prompt post - evacuation review, they should pass constitutional muster. The Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. " This protection has two parts — substantive and procedural. The former guarantees that government action will not be "clearly arbitrary" or "unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety,' morals, or general welfare." Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 US 365, 395, 47 S Ct 114, 121, 71 L Ed 303, 314 (1926). The latter requirement ensures that some minimal procedural' safeguards are afforded, so that an individual has an opportunity to be heard "at a'meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Armstrong v. Manor, 380 'US 545, '552, 85 S Ct 1187, '14 L Ed2d 62, 66 (1965) (cited with approval in State ex rel Schrunk v. Metz, 125 Or App 405, 416, 867 P2d 503 (1993). We believe that the emergency evacuation orders and ordinances discussed above can meet both requirements. A. Substantive Due Process Three . recent federal court decisions discuss substantive due process guarantees' in the context of emergency action. Annendariz v. Penman, 75 F3d 1311 (1996) ' (emergency closure of low- income housing unit); Sinaloa Lake Owners Ass'n: v. City of Simi Valley, 882. F2d 1398 (9th Cir 1989) (as amended); cen den 494 US 1016,-110‘S' Ct 1317, 108 L Ed2d 493 (1990) (order to breach 'private dam, destroyi ig`private lake); Miller v. 'Campbell County, Wyo., 722 F Supp at 695 -696 (evacuation order keeping persons from their property for a brief period). The court in Sinaloa Lake found a substantive due process violation; the court in Miller,did not. The third case, Armendariz, holds that a substantive'due process claim does not arise in an emergency action situation when plaintiffs 'have other constitutional remedies available to protect their interests, e.g., remedies allowing compensation' for taking private, property for public use. 5 In Sinaloa Lake, the Ninth Circuit concluded that plaintiffs may prevail on a substantive due process claim if they can show a "malicious, irrational and plainly arbitrary" government action. 882 F2d at 1409. The court relied on the following test to determine whether the constitutional line had been crossed: [W]e will look to such factors as the . : nee.d for the governmental action in question, the relationship between the need and the action, the extent of the harm inflicted, and whether the action was taken in a good faith effort or for the purpose of causing harm. Id. (citing Rutherford v. City of Berkeley, 780 F2d 1444, 1446 (9th Cir 1986). The court concluded: To be sure, governmental entities must have much latitude in carrying out their ' police power responsibilities; mere errors of judgment, or actions that are mistaken or misguided, do not violate due process. But malicious, irrational and plainly arbitrary actions are not within the legitimate purview of the state's power. Id. In Miller, the federal district court reached a similar conclusion, stating: To prevail on a substantive due process claim, the plaintiff must show that the action in ordering an evacuation of his property was "clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no . substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare." 722 F Supp at 695, citing Euclid, 272 US at 395. The recent Ninth Circuit decision in Armendariz, however, holds that substantive due process claims do not lie in cases arising out of governmental emergency action. At issue in Armendari was whether a plaintiff . could bring a substantive due process claim_ against the government for taking private property as an alternative to litigating a takings claim under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs in the case were owners of low- income housing in San . Bernardino, California. The city, closed the housing during an emergency health and safety sweep authorized by the Municipal Code. The Code provided city officials with summary authority to secure from entry any structure in [their] discretion [they] determine to be immediately dangerous or hazardous, or in any manner injurious to public health or safety. 75 F3d at 1314 (quoting City of San Bernardino, Municipal Code (SBMC), ch 15.28.140). The plaintiffs did not seek compensation from the city under the Takings Clause. Rather, 6 they brought civil rights claims in federal court alleging, among other things, violations of procedural and substantive due process. The court held that because the type of government action that plaintiffs alleged is the type of conduct regulated by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, their substantive due process claim was precluded. Id. at 1324. The court specifically overruled Sinaloa Lake to the extent Sinaloa Lake suggests that a substantive due process claim offers an alternative to seeking compensation from the government under Takings Clause provisions. Id. at 1326. Emergency evacuation orders may give rise to temporary takings claims under the takings clauses of the United States or Oregon Constitutions. See discussion, below, at note 22. If they do, Armendariz bars any substantive due process claim. If no takings claim is involved and if the Governor's evacuation orders and local evacuation ordinances are reasonably and in good faith based on a conclusion that circumstances meet the definition of . an emergency set out in ORS 401.025(4) and are tailored to meet the immediate danger, they are unlikely to violate substantive due process guarantees under the Sinaloa Lake or Miller tests. See Miller, 945 F2d at 354 (county had "an obvious need to act with considerable dispach [sic] * * * [and its actions were] reasonable and measured, with appropriate concern for the situation and the interests of all involved "). B. Procedural Due Process Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining, 452 US 264, sets the modern standard for procedural due process in cases involving summary government action. The case involved a challenge to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, which, among other provisions, allowed the Secretary of the Interior to immediately order a total or partial cessation of mining operations when an inspection showed that the operation violated the Act and that the operation either posed an immediate health or safety danger or could reasonably be expected to cause imminent and significant environmental damage. Id. at 298. The federal district court held that this provision violated the procedural due process protection of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it did not provide "sufficiently objective criteria for summary administrative action." Id. at 299. The United States Supreme Court disagreed. The Court acknowledged that procedural due process ordinarily requires a hearing prior to deprivation of a significant property interest. Id. However, it also recognized the long line of cases authorizing summary action in emergency situations. Id. at 300. Applying that case law to the cessation order provision of the Act, the Court reasoned: Protection of the health and safety of the public is a paramount governmental interest which justifies summary administrative action. Indeed, deprivation of property to protect the public health and safety is "[o]ne of the oldest examples" of permissible summary action. Moreover, the administrative action provided through immediate cessation orders responds to situations in which swift action is necessary to protect public health and safety. This is precisely the type of emergency situation in which this Court has found summary administrative action justified. 7 • Id. at 300 -301 (citations omitted). The Court found the statute's definition of "imminent danger to the health and safety of the public, " 191 and the Secretary's definition of "significant, imminent environmental harm, " more than sufficient to describe the type of danger to which a government may respond summarily. In reaching its conclusion that the provision did not violate procedural due process requirements, the Court also emphasized the importance of "prompt and adequate post- deprivation administrative hearings and an opportunity for judicial review." Id. at 301 -303. We have no difficulty concluding that the definition of emergency in ORS 401.025(4), which triggers the authority to order an emergency evacuation, sets sufficient standards to authorize summary evacuation without pre- evacuation hearings. The issue of post- action hearing and review is more problematic because ORS chapter 401 does not provide for any opportunity for hearings concerning emergency decisions. Nonetheless, for the following reasons, we conclude that this constitutional requirement is satisfied if the order or ordinance provides an opportunity for a prompt post- evacuation hearing. In State ex rel Schrunk v. Metz, the Oregon Court of Appeals recently considered a state statute and city ordinance authorizing summary seizure of real and personal property used in illegal gambling activity. 125 Or App at 417 -418. The state statute authorized the city forfeiture ordinance. Neither the statute nor the ordinance required any post- seizure hearing or judicial review. Reasoning that "no reason appears why the city would be overly burdened or any public interest disserved by providing an immediate post- seizure probable cause hearing" at which the claimant may contest the validity of the seizure order, the court held that the city's failure to provide such hearing violated procedural guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. This analysis suggests that the authorizing statute need not contain hearing provisions so long as the implementing ordinance or order provides an opportunity for hearing. Therefore, we conclude that in order to meet procedural due process requirements, the Governor's order or local ordinance ordering emergency evacuation must include provisions allowing prompt post- evacuation hearings to review the action 21' The issue the hearing must resolve is whether the Governor or the local government abused discretion in ordering the evacuation. Resolution of that issue turns on whether an emergency threatening public safety existed or was imminent when the evacuation order was issued. Even if the hearing determines that discretion was abused, that abuse is not a violation of due process guarantees. "The relevant [due process] inquiry is not whether * * * [an] order should have been issued in a particular case, but whether the statutory procedure itself is incapable of affording due process." Hodel, 452 US at 302. As we have said, the standards for declaring an emergency under ORS chapter 401 and the opportunity for a prompt post -order hearing provide adequate due process under the Hodel analysis. Finally, we emphasize the importance of providing a prompt opportunity for hearing. The opportunity for a hearing at "a meaningful time" is fundamental to affording due 8 process. See Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 US at 552. In Metz, the Court of Appeals underscored the importance of prompt hearings in helping to minimize the risk of erroneous • decisions. 125 Or App at 416 -41 If the govemment decision at issue has arguably deprived a person of his or her property, a prompt opportunity to review the decision protects both the person and the government from an erroneous decision. The person is protected because his or her property will be promptly returned if the decision is found erroneous. 'The government is protected because a prompt reversal of an erroneous decision will limit the :government's liability for compensating the person for any temporary taking of the person's property resulting from the decision THEODORE R KULO GOSKI Attorney . General. . TRK:DCA:MLB:AV:jmf:clr/JGGOD38A 11 ORS 131.705 to 131.735 authorize public officials to exclude persons from public property, including public lands when the Governor proclaims an emergency based on a finding that a "clear and present danger" of human injury or property damage exists; or when a person'spresence denies, or causes substantial interference- with, ingress to or' egress from public property. ORS 131 :715. "Public officials" include heads of state agencies, boards and commissions, heads of political subdivisions or their designates. ORS 131.705(2). These statutes allow police to require persons to leave public buildings or land. ?J Similar statutes have been in effect since 1949. See Or Laws 1949, ch 434 and 574. 3/ ORS 401.025(4) defines an "emergency" as. including: [A]ny man -made or natural'event or circumstance causing or loss of life, injury to •person or property,' human suffering or financial 'toss, ' and includes, but is not limited to, fire, explosion, flood, severe weather,' drought, earthquake, volcanic activity, spills or releases of oil or hazardous material as defined in ORS 466.605, contamination;'utility or transportation emergencies, disease; blight, infestation, crisis influx of migrants unmanageable by the county; civil disturbance, riot, sabotage and • war. a Writing in Dennehy v. Dept. of Rev., 305 Or 595, 604 n 3, 756 P2d 13 (1988), Justice Linde disapproved the use of the term "police power." He described it as nothing other than "the general plenary power to legislate." Nonetheless, the Legislature chose the term to describe the Governor's emergency powers, and it is commonly used, useful shorthand for describing the general power to enact legislation protecting public health and safety. 9 For purposes of this opinion, we need not decide what the limits of the Governor's authority are under ORS 401.065(1). Section 3 of the Act of January 12, 1951, provides in pertinent part: (c) The term "civil defense" means all those activities and measures designed or undertaken (1) to minimize the effects upon the civilian population caused or which would be caused * * * by a natural disaster, (2) to deal with the immediate emergency conditions which would be created by any * * * natural disaster, and (3) to effectuate emergency repairs to, or the emergency restoration of, vital utilities and facilities destroyed or damaged by any * * * natural disaster. Such term shall include, but shall not be limited to, (A) measures to be taken in preparation for anticipated * * * natural disaster (including the establishment of appropriate organizations, operational plans, and supporting agreements; * * * the construction or preparation of shelters, shelter areas, and control centers; and, when appropriate, the non - military evacuation of civil populations); (B) measures to be taken during * * * natural disaster (including * * * the evacuation of personnel to shelter areas; the control of traffic and panic * * * ); and (C) measures to be taken following * * * natural disaster (including activities for fire fighting; * * * emergency welfare measures; * * * )[.] 50 USCA § 2252 (West 1991). Although this federal statutory provision was repealed in 1994, its definition of "civil defense" remains one of the definitional standards used to define emergency services under Oregon law. u Article VI, section 10, of the Oregon Constitution provides in relevant part: The Legislative Assembly shall provide by law a method whereby the legal voters of any county, by majority vote of such voters voting thereon at any legally called election, may adopt, amend, revise or repeal a county charter. A county charter may provide for the exercise by the county of authority over matters of county concern. ORS 203.035 provides in relevant part: (1) * * * the governing body or the electors of a county may by ordinance exercise authority within the county over matters of county concern, to the fullest extent allowed by Constitutions and laws of the United States and of this state, as fully as if each particular power comprised in that general authority were specifically listed in ORS 203.030 to 203.075. (2) The power granted by this section is in addition to other grants of power to counties, shall not be construed to limit or qualify any such grant and shall be liberally construed, to the end that counties have all powers over matters of county concern that it is possible for them to have under the Constitutions and laws of the United States and of this state. Article XI, section 2, of the Oregon Constitution provides in relevant part: 10 The Legislative Assembly shall not enact, amend or repeal any charter or act of incorporation for any municipality, city or town. The legal voters of every city and town are hereby granted power to enact and amend their municipal charter, subject to the Constitution and criminal laws of the State of Oregon * * *. • 91 ORS 221.926 provides: Every city organized under sections 1 to 6, pages 119 to 123, Oregon Laws 1893, may pass any and all necessary ordinances for the purpose of carrying into force and effect any provisions of ORS 221.901 to 221.928 or any other laws concerning city government. 10/ Under this policy, the state cannot assume authority for responding to an emergency "unless the appropriate response is beyond the capability of the city and county in which it occurs, the city or county fails to act, or the emergency involves two or more counties." ORS 401.015(2). Whether this provision places restrictions on the Governor's authority to declare an emergency under ORS 401.055 is a question we need not answer here. Because local ordinances and Governor's evacuation orders may take many different forms, we also decline to speculate about what differences in particular local ordinances and governor's orders might prevent them from operating concurrently. Depending on whether the ordinance and order are civil or criminal in nature and depending on the particular provisions of the ordinance and order, the order may displace the ordinance. See generally City of Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters, 292 Or 266, 639 P2d 90 (1981); City of Portland v. Dollarhide, 300 Or 490, 714 P2d 220 (1986) (test of whether ordinance and statute conflict is whether ordinance permits an act the statute prohibits or prohibits an act the statute permits); and City of Portland v. Jackson, 316 Or 143, 850 P2d 1093 (1993) (criminal statute will displace criminal ordinance covering same conduct if ordinance prohibits something permitted by statute). If a local ordinance is inconsistent with the governor's order, the order prevails and the ordinance is inoperative. ORS 401.095(1). "' The context of this conclusion shows that the reference to "other officers of a political subdivision" means other peace officers. The opinion in no way suggests that the reference is to county commissions or to city councils. As discussed above, city councils and county commissions have authority to adopt ordinances authorizing evacuation orders. 12 ' "Peace officers" include sheriffs, municipal police officers and the Oregon State Police. ORS 133.005(3). u' The duties and authorities of rural fire district fire fighters are governed by ORS chapter 478. The chapter does not give rural district fire fighters any peace officer authority. 14/ In several cases where the government summarily destroyed property, plaintiffs alleged that the action deprived them of property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution or Article I, section 18, of the Oregon Constitution. See, e.g., Miller v. Schoene, 276 US 272, 48 S Ct 246, 72 L Ed 568 (1928) (diseased trees destroyed - Fifth Amendment); Shaffer v. City of Winston, 33 Or App 391, 576 P2d 823 (197$) (destruction of buildings - Art I, § 18)); Willard v. City of Eugene, 25 Or App 491, 550 P2d 457 (1976) (same). None of these cases found a constitutional violation; all concluded that the destruction of property to abate a nuisance or protect the public health or safety from a significant threat did not amount to an 11 • .v appropriation of private property to public use within the meaning of the just compensation clauses of the federal or state constitutions. If physical destruction of property does not constitute a taking for which compensation is required, we are hard pressed to conclude that temporarily excluding a person from his or her property during a fire emergency requires compensation. See Berman Corp v. State Hwy. Comm., 24 Or App 813, 547 P2d 192 (1976) (temporary interference with public access to a business is not a taking); Cf. Dodd v. Hood River County, 317 Or 172, 855 P2d 608 (1993) (regulatory restriction on property use is not a taking when some substantial beneficial use remains). u� The Oregon Constitution has no identical provision. lu The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Article I, section 18, of the Oregon Constitution contains a similar provision: Private property shall not be taken for public use * * * without just compensation * * *" 17 The text of ORS 401.025(4) is set out in note 3, above. ' The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution imposes the same requirements on federal action that the Fourteenth Amendment imposes on state action. v� The danger was described as one that could: [R]easonably be expected to cause substantial physical harm to persons outside the permit area before such condition, practice or violation can be abated. A reasonable expectation of death or serious injury before abatement exists if a rational person, subjected to the same conditions or practices giving rise to the peril, would not expose himself or herself to the danger during the time necessary for abatement. 452 US 301 (quoting 30 USC § 1291(8) (1976 ed, Supp 20/ The regulations describe the harm as follows: (a) An environmental harm is any adverse impact on land, air, or water resources, which resources include, but are not limited to, plant and animal life. (b) An environmental harm is imminent, if a condition, practice, or violation exists which - (1) Is causing such harm, or, (2) May reasonably be expected to cause such harm at any time before the end of the reasonable abatement time that would be set under section 521(a)(3) of the Act. (c) An environmental harm is significant if that harm is appreciable and not immediately reparable. 452 US 301 -302 n 45 (quoting 30 CFR §§ 700.5 and 701.5 (1980)). 12 ,• 211 The fact that ORS chapter 401 does not expressly provide for judicial review of the orders or ordinances should not be fatal to their constitutionality under procedural due process analysis. This is because no government officials, including the Governor, may avoid judicial review of actions not authorized by law. Oregon courts always have jurisdiction to review whether an official's action complies with statutory or constitutional requirements. Cf. Lipscomb v. State Bd. of Higher Ed., 305 Or 472, 477 -479 (1988) (court may review Governor's determination that veto was within the Governor's constitutional authority). Therefore, regardless of whether ORS chapter 401 expressly provides for judicial review of emergency evacuation orders, such review is available. iv Governments bear the risk of erroneous summary action. If either the Governor or a local government abuses discretion in ordering an evacuation, and as a result owners are temporarily deprived of the use of their property, the owners may have a claim for temporary taking of their property. Cf. 6A McQmuN supra, at § 24.27 (discussing erroneous summary property destruction). • 13 1 7)7 II. AUTHORITY This Plan is issued by the Tigard City Council pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 401, Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS), and City Ordinance No. 96 -38. Summary of ORS 401: 401.305 Emergency management agency of City...Emergency Program Manager. "Each City may establish an emergency management agency which shall be directly responsible to the executive officer or governing body of the ...city. The executive officer or governing body of each...city which participates shall appoint an Emergency Program Manager who shall have responsibility for the organization, administration, and operation of such agency, subject to the direction and control of the city and may perform such functions outside the territorial limits as required under any mutual aid agreement or as authorized by the...city." 401.315 City authorized to incur obligations for emergency services. "In carrying out the provisions of ORS 401.015 to 401.105, 401.260 to 401.325, and 401.355 to 401.580,...cities may enter into contracts and incur obligations necessary to mitigate, prepare for, respond to, or recover from emergencies or major disasters." 401.325 Emergency management agency appropriation; tax levy. (1) "Each...city may make appropriations in the manner provided by law for making appropriations for the expenses of the...city, for the payment of expenses of its emergency management agency, and may levy taxes upon the taxable property within the...city." (2) "An appropriation made under subsection (1) of this section shall be budgeted so that it is possible to identify it as a distinguishable expense category." 401.335 Temporary housing for disaster victims; political subdivision's authority. "Any political subdivision of this state is expressly authorized to acquire, temporarily or permanently, by purchase, lease, or otherwise, sites required for installation of temporary housing units for disaster victims, and to enter into arrangements necessary to prepare or equip such sites to utilize the housing units." City of Tigard Emergency Ordinance No. 96 -38 is included at the front of this Plan immediately following the Title Page. Emergency Purchasing Policies are included in Resolution Number 05 -01 Emergency Water Rules are included in Tigard Municipal Code 12.10.180, paragraph A and B. 12.10.180 Limitation On The Use Of Water. A. Limitation on the use of water as to hours, purpose, or manner may be prescribed from time to time by order of the Public Works Director, based on a finding that the limitation is reasonable given the available and projected water supply and demand. Any order under this section shall be reviewed by City Council at its next session following issuance of the order. The City Council may affirm, withdraw or amend the order. B. The Public Works Director, the City Manager or the City Council may call for voluntary reductions in water use, including, but not limited to, voluntary rotational watering plans. (Ord. 01 -15 §1, Ord. 93 -34) , o e 401.309 Declaration of state of emergency by local government; procedures; mandatory evacuations. (1) Each county, city or other municipal corporation in this state may, by ordinance or resolution, establish procedures to prepare for and carry out any activity to prevent, minimize, respond to or recover from an emergency. The ordinance or resolution shall describe the conditions required for the declaration of a state of emergency within the jurisdiction and the agency or individual authorized to declare that a state of emergency exists. (2) An ordinance or resolution adopted under this section may designate the emergency management agency, if any, or any other agency or official of the county, city or municipal corporation as the agency or official charged with carrying out emergency duties or functions under the ordinance. (3) A county, city or municipal corporation may authorize an agency or official to order mandatory evacuations of residents and other individuals after a declaration of a state of emergency within the jurisdiction is declared. An evacuation under an ordinance or resolution authorized by this section shall be ordered only when necessary for public safety or when necessary for the efficient conduct of activities that minimize or mitigate the effects of the emergency. (4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect or diminish the powers of the Governor during a state of emergency declared under ORS 401.055. The provisions of ORS 401.015 to 401.105, 401.115 and 401.125 to 401.145 supersede the provisions of an ordinance or resolution authorized by this section when the Governor declares a state of emergency within any area in which such an ordinance or resolution applies. (5) As used in this section, "emergency" has the meaning given that term in ORS 401.025. [1997 c.361 §2] 10. EMERGENCY CONTRACTS AND PURCHASES An emergency condition is a situation that creates substantial risk of loss, damage, interruption of service, or threat to public health or safety that could not have been reasonably anticipated and requires an immediate remedy to the situation. The existence of such conditions may create serious and immediate need for goods and services that cannot be met through normal solicitation and acquisition methods. During conditions of emergency, the City Manager or his/her designee may, at their discretion, allow purchases or contracts that have not undergone competitive bidding in accordance with ORS 279B.080 to be made or issued. City staff should prepare a scope of work or specification in as much detail as possible of the required goods or services as well as describe the emergency conditions and forward this information to the City Manager or designee. The City Manager or designee shall declare the existence of an emergency need and authorize staff to secure the required goods or services. To the extent reasonably possible under the circumstances, staff shall encourage competition by attempting to make informal solicitations or to obtain informal quotes prior to the purchase. Staff must record any measures taken to encourage competition including the reasons for choosing a particular vendor. Written findings describing the circumstances requiring any prompt performance of the contract and of the harm anticipated to result from failing to establish a contract on an expedited basis. Written findings detailing the emergency conditions that necessitate the purchase without following competitive procedures must be including in the contract or purchase file. A copy of the contract or purchase order, along with a copy of the findings, must be immediately forwarded to the LCRB by the City Manager. Any contract or purchase or a public improvement that is to be secured through the emergency process set forth in this section must be awarded within 60 days. The LCRB may, under ORS 279C.335(5), grant an extension of this 60 -day period. Emergency - Section 10, Page 1 Rev. - 06/01/2005 CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 96-5 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 83-47. ADOPTING A NEW EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLAN. A NID DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS. the City of Tigard's Emergency Management Plan was originally adopted in October of 1983 and has been outdated for many years; and WHEREAS. the City wishes to formalize its policies and operational plans for emergency response by City staff and volunteers as well as defining roles and responsibilities for such responses. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Ordinance No. 83-47, which adopted Tigard's original Emergency Response Plan, is hereby repealed in it entirety SECTION 2: Pursuant to ORS 401.305, an Emergency Management Agency for the City of Tigard is hereby established. Subject to the appointment by the City Administrator, the Public Works Director shall serve as the Emergency Program Manager, at the will of the City Administrator, who shall have responsibility for the organization. administration and operation of the Emergency Management Agency during an emergency in accordance with the provisions of the Emergency Management Plan. SECTION 3: The City Council shall adopt Sections 1 and 2 of the Emergency Management Plan, attached as Exhibit "A" hereto. These sections will serve as the policy direction for emergency operations. Section 3 and beyond of the Plan address operational direction, hazard specific plans, resources lists and call lists. The Emergency Program Manager is authorized and directed to work through the Emergency Committee to make any necessary changes, additions or deletions to the Emergency Management Plan. The Emergency Program Manager shall file copies of the necessary modifications to the . Plan with >the City Council. SECTION 4 The • Emergency ` rogram Manager . :is authorized to negotiate any necessary and appropriate agreements between the City and otkher public agencies and private parties . iia theittittberarievof the policies set forh•in the Emergency Management' Plan. SECTION 5: In ° th event ;of an erDerge1cy.a d6cI,rat'.on of 'emergency shall be declan°&' I in accordance with the procedures ;..std rhaiiii . f -. , :.mrnand set forth in the Plan,. henever 1 . a state of etnpt'ge tir. Issas ! e'i oedared'IQ -nu t within the City, the plan outlines measures to ;be iaK ri interest of public: -health, safety and welfare. ORDINAN1 16. `96 Page 1 :.:t: SECTION 6: An emergency could arise at any time and an organization and action plans for providing emergency operations is necessary for the peace. health. safety and welfare of the people of the City of Tigard, and theretore an emergency is hereby declared to exist and this ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption by the Council and signature of the Mayor. PASSED: By lin U moo vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this 12th, day of November , 1996. (( h_12 - Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this 12th day of ovember , 1996. ared igip Nicoli, Mayor Appr • ved as to form: Ci Attorney 1 k , iZ ( `o Date i/citywideJemerpirdccord 11.12 • • • • ORDINANCE No. 96-31 Page 2 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO.05 -5 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (NIMS) AS THE FOUNDATION FOR INCIDENT COMMAND, COORDINATION, AND SUPPORT ACTIVITIES AND ESTABLISHING POLICY THAT THE CITY OF TIGARD WILL PROVIDE APPROPRIATE NIMS TRAINING FOR RESPONSIBLE CITY PERSONNEL WHEREAS, response to and recovery from major emergencies and disasters requires integrated professional management and coordination; and WHEREAS, the President directed the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to develop and administer a National Incident Management System (NIMS) to standardize and enhance incident management procedures nationwide; and WHEREAS, the National Incident Management System provides a structure and process to effectively coordinate responders from multiple disciplines and levels of government and to integrate them with resources from the private sector and non - governmental organizations; and WHEREAS, use of the National Incident Management System, which has as a key component the Incident Command System (ICS), will improve the City of Tigard's ability to manage major emergencies and disasters; and WHEREAS, failure to adopt and use the National Incident Management System may preclude Tigard from receiving federal preparedness grants or reimbursement for costs expended during major emergency and disaster response and recovery operations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The National Incident Management System is hereby adopted as the foundation for incident command, coordination and support activities, and the Incident Command System shall be the City of Tigard's official incident response system. SECTION 2: It shall be the policy of the City of Tigard to provide appropriate training on the National Incident Management System and Incident Management System and their core components to personnel responsible for managing and/or supporting major emergency, disaster, and day -to -day field operations. RESOLUTION NO.05 Page 1 r • SECTION 3: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This f3 121 day of SP-P7 &... 2005. r ` Mayo City of Tigard ATTEST: P ak-it- Out` City Recorder.- City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 05 - 5 Page 2 q 1/4-/ Section 3: J'e Hazard Assessment I tr, o/ ( "{f3' L7ftf :`C;;;C'.SJ711-'ff) r r a A l•_i j v{ 4 xC rr • Introduction 4 , •, Conducting a hazard assessment can provide �.�1 ra • information on the location of hazards, the value f o . h `: ° • of existing land and property in hazard locations f t ; �a ? t . , i and an analysis of risk to life, property, and the t _ environment that may result from natural hazard events. Hazard assessments are subject to the avail- '`. - ; tr p ability of hazard- specific data Tigard conducted a ; hazard assessment for all of the hazards for which � - data was available. The three levels of a hazard asz ;r "'{ '�• "'ti =' �' • ` l sessment are as follows: • Hazard Identification identifies the property and population exposed to a haz- geographic extent, the intensity of the aril. A summary of community assets vul- hazard, and the probability of its occur nerable to each hazard is located in Table rence. Maps are frequently used to display 3 -2. Additionally, a more detailed descrip- hazard identification data. Tigard identi- non of the vulnerability of these assets is fled five major hazards that consistently affect this geographic area. These hazards located in the specific hazard sections. • — floods, landslides, wildfires, earthquakes, Risk Analysis /Estimating Potential and severe storms: wind and winter — were Losses involves estimating the damage injuries, and financial losses likely to be identified through an extensive process that sustained in a geographic area over a given utilized input from the Hazard Mitigation period of time. This level of analysis in- Working Group. The geographic extent of wolves using mathematical models. The two each identified hazard has been identified measurable components of risk analysis using GIS and is illustrated by the maps listed in Table 3-1. are magnitude of the harm that may result • Vulnerability Assessment /Inventorying and the likelihood of the harm occurring. Describing vulnerability in terms of dollar Assets combines hazard identification with losses provides the community and the an inventory of the existing (or planned) state with a common framework in which to measure the effects of hazards on assets. Table 3 -1: List of Reference and Hazard Maps Map Number Type of Map Section of the Plan Federal Requirements for Hazard Assessment 1 Base Map of Tigard Section 2 The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA) rein - 2 Critical Facilities Section 3 forced the importance of pre - disaster mitigation 3 Essential Facilities Section 3 a.1 infrastructure: Water/Waste Water Section 3 planning. Section 322 of the DMA specifically set 4.2 Infrastructure: Major utilities Section 3 out the importance mitigation planning at the state 4.3 Infrastructure: Bridges and overpasses section 3 and local levels. The DMA requires local jurisdic- s FEMA 100-Year Floodplain and 1996 Flood Inundation Section 5 Lions to have an approved mitigation plan in place 6 Landslide Hazards Section 6 before receiving Hazard Mitigation Grant Pro- 7 W ldfire Hazards Section 7 gram funds. Table 3 -3 lists how each Section 322 tor 8 Storm Hazard Sanding Priorities Section 8 8 S tor wake Hazards Section requirement for local mitigation plans is incorpo- 9 rated into the Tigard NHMPA. Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Addendum I City of Tigard 17 Table 3 -2: Federal Criteria for Hazard Assessment Tigard Section 322 Requirement How is this addressed? 4. Query critical, essential, and infrastructure Each hazard section includes a map illustrating the Identifying Hazards geographic extent of the hazards affecting Tigard facilities that intersect floodplain and are within using the best available data. City Limits The hazard sections of the Washington County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan provide documentation for all of the large -scale hazard Landslide Profiling Hazard Events events affecting the region. Wherc data is available, City of Tigard has provided local impacts from 1. Query street segments that intersect slopes historical hazard events. 25% Table 3 -3 documents the community assets that J Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying are vulnerable to natural hazards. Amore detailed 2. Query critical, essential, and infrastructure that Assets description of the vulnerability of these assets is intersect slopes located in the specific hazard sections. Using the best available data, an estimate of 3. Query taxlots that intersect slopes and are Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating potential losses from natural hazards is located in within City limits and remove records with Potential Losses the hazard specific sections. The Community Profile Section of this plan bldgval =0 Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing provides a description of the development trends in Development Trends 4. Calculate number of taxlots, bldgval, acres, and City of Tigard. percent of land in City of Tigard To implement the new DMA 2000 requirements, Wildfire FEMA prepared an Interim Final Rule, at 44 CFR 1. Query street segments that intersect wildfire Parts 201 and 206, which established planning and zone funding criteria for local mitigation programs. Out - 2. Query critical, essential, and infrastructure that lined in the Code of Federal Requirements under intersect wildfire zone Title 44: Emergency Management and Assistance 3. .Query taxlots that intersect wildfire zone and in Chapter I: Federal Emergency Management are within City limits and remove records with Agency, Part 201: Mitigation Planning, Section bldgval =0 201.6: Local Mitigation Plans is the requirement 4. Calculate number of taxlots, bldgval, acres, and for hazard assessment. This risk assessment re percent of land in City of Tigard quirement is intended to provide information that will help the community to identify and prioritize Earthquake mitigation activities that will reduce losses from the 1. Query earthquake zones identified hazards. 2. Query critical, essential, and infrastructure that intersects each zone 110.1:0 !"C %. _i. \ - .w •`.r.':Ii'Ti''!L 3. Query taxlots that have center in each zone 4. Query streets that intersect zone a & b 5. Calculate number of taxlots, bldgval, acres, and Floodplain percent of land in City of Tigard 1. Query taxlots that intersect floodplain and are within City Limits, remove records with 4c1.4': 11.e'`Li hi] hy BLDGVAL =0, calculate number of taxlots, bldgval, acres, and percent of land in City 2. Query taxlots that intersect floodplain & 1996 This section outlines the resources, facilities, and flood and within City Limits, remove records infrastructure that, if damaged, could significantly with BLDGVAL =0, calculate number of tax - impact the public safety, economic conditions, and lots, bldgval, acres, and percent of land in City environmental integrity of Tigard. The exposure of Tigard of community assets to natural hazards is provided 3. Query taxlots that intersect 1996 flood and in Table 3 -3 Tigard Vulnerability Assessment. 'The within City Limits, remove records with community assets are defined as follows: BLDGVAL =0, calculate number of taxlots, bldgval, acres, and percent of land in City of 18 City of Tigard I Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Addendum Table 3 -3: Tigard Vulnerability Assessment Essential Facilities Hazard Critical Facilities Essential Facilities Infrastructure Facilities that are essential to the continued deliv- Flood 0 0 15 ery of key government services and /or that may Landslide 0 0 0 significantly impact the public's ability to recover Earthquake 18 27 31 from the emergency. These facilities may include: Severe Storm City buildings such as the Public Services Build - Wildfire 3 5 9 ing, the City Hall, and other public facilities such as Critical Facilities schools. Map 3 shows Tigard's essential facilities. Facilities that are critical to government response and recovery activities (i.e. life, safety, property, and • Hospitals /Immediate Medical Care Facilities: environmental protection). These facilities include: Legacy Immediate Care Clinic suite 104 911 Centers, Emergency Operations Centers, Metropolitan Clinic PC Police and Fire Stations, Public Works facilities, Tigard Family Medical Center sewer and water facilities, hospitals, bridges, roads, The Portland Clinic shelters, and more. Facilities that, if damaged, Scholls Ferry Urgent Clinic could cause serious secondary impacts may also be Providence St. Vincent Urgent Care Clinic considered "critical." A hazardous material facility is one example of this type of critical facility. The Public Schools: locations of critical facilities are shown on Map 2. Tigard High School Durham School • Fire Stations: Templeton School Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue Station 51 Twality Middle School Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue Station 50 Fowler Middle School Charles F. Tigard School • Law Enforcement: Mary Woodward School City Hall Metzger School Deer Creek School • Military: Phil Lewis School Oregon Army National Guard Tigard - Tualatin School District Administration Building • Public Works: First Student Transportation Center Public Works Building Streets and Parks Operations Building • Private Schools: MITCH. Charter School • City Buildings: St Anthony School Permit Center Tigard Senior Center • Potential Shelter Sites: Tigard Library Calvin Presbyterian Niche Hall Blvd Baptist Church Christ the King Lutheran • Private: Good Neighbor Center Washington Square St. Anthony Roman Catholic Church Lincoln Center All Tigard - Tualatin Schools Suburban Propane Church of Christ Southwest Pool and Spa House Tigard Church of Christ St. James Episcopal First Baptist Church of Tigard Horizon Community Church Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Addendum I City of Tigard 19 Tigard Senior Center Table 3 -3 identifies the number of facilities and Tigard Christian Church infrastructure exposed to each of the natural haz- Tigard Covenant Church ards affecting the City of Tigard. The implications Latter Say Saints /Chapel of exposure to the various hazards are outlined in Tigard First Church of Christ Scientist each of the hazards sections. Additional tax lot Tigard Friends Church information is also included in the hazard specific Assembly of God sections. Tigard United Methodist Infrastructure Infrastructure that provides services for Tigard Maps 4.1 through 4.3 show the infrastructure por- tion of the community assets. • Transportation Networks: Highway 99W Highway 217 Hall Blvd Durham 72nd Interstate 5 Walnut Gaarde Bull Mountain Rd Beef Bend Rd Scholls Ferry Rd Bonita Greenberg Rd - McDonald • Water Facilities: 8 City Reservoirs 6 Pump Stations 5 Wells 2 SCADA System 1 36" Main 2 Double Sewerage Siphon Structure • Special Service Districts: Clean Water Services Treatment Plant • Private Utilities: 2 NW Natural Gas Pipelines 5 Portland General Electric Substations 2 Verizon Central Switch Offices 3 Communication Towers 1 Kinder Morgan Liquid Petroleum Line 20 City of Tigard I Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Addendum Section 10: methodology for Emergency Operations Plans. This methodology considers the history of the Mi tigation Planning Priority mumdthreat ovulnerability he hazard (worst case scenario), Sy stem and the probability of the hazard. Each of these criteria is weighted, and the final score is used for Action item Prioritization ation ,iieti;Fodlo/c.,- j. prioritizing the hazards. The following is a full The Hazard Mitigation Working Group (HMWG) description of the methodology used: has prioritized the identified mitigation strategies in order to better allocate resources for plan imple- Categories Considered: mentation. The criteria used for prioritizing the action items are the plan goals, hazards addressed, HISTORY: criticality of need, population served, and likeli- The record of occurrences of previous major hood of success. emergencies or disasters (weight factor = 2). Although this methodology provides a guide for LOW 0 - 1 event per 100 years the HMWG in terms of implementation, the MEDIUM 2 - 3 events per 100 years HMWG has the option to implement any of the HIGH 4 + events per 100 years action items at any time. This option to consider all action items for implementation allows the VULNERABILITY: HMWG to consider mitigation strategies as new The percentage of population and property likely situations or opportunities arise, such as capital- to be affected (weight factor = 5). izing on funding sources that could pertain to an action item that is not the highest priority. LOW < 1% affected MEDIUM 1 - 10% affected Step 1: Prioritize Plan Goals HIGH > 10 °. /o affected The Tigard and Washington County mitigation . goals were considered during each phase of the MAXIMUM THREAT mitigation planning process. As the mitigation The maximum percentage of population and prop - action items were developed, the HMWG identi- erty that could be impacted under a worst -case fled which plan goals were addressed by each scenario (weight factor = 10). action item. The HMWG ranked the plan goals to determine the priorities for Tigard, and each goal LOW < 5% affected was given a score of one point to five points, in as- MEDIUM 5 - 25% affected tending order. The points for the plan goals were HIGH > 25% affected then totaled for each action item. The prioritized plan goals are as follows: PROBABILITY: The likelihood of occurrence within a specified 4 Points: Life, Property, and Natural. Systems period of time (weight factor = 7). 3 Points: Emergency Services 2 Points: Public Awareness and Partnerships LOW > 1 chance per 100 years 1 Point: Implementation MEDIUM > 1 chance per 50 years HIGH > 1 chance per 10 years Step 2: Prioritize Hazards The natural hazards addressed by the Tigard Severity Ratings: Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Addendum were LOW = 1 - 3 points prioritized using a FEMA - accepted hazard analysis MEDIUM = 4 - 6 points HIGH = 7 - 10 points Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Addendum I City of Tigard 51 Although the methodology used allows Tigard to quantify and compare natural hazards, it is flawed in that it compares hazards with high probabilities and relatively low consequences with hazards that have low probabilities and high consequences. The i -4MWG took this into consideration during the prioritization process, and the results are shown in Table 10 -1. The hazards were given a score of one point to seven points, in ascending order of importance. The Multi- Hazard action items were given the highest score (6), as they address more than one hazard. The points for the hazard scores were then totaled for each action item. Table 10 -1: Natural Hazard Prioritization Score Hazard History Vulnerability Max. Threat Probability Total Hazard Score • Multi- Hazard - - - - - 6 Weather Storm 16 35 100 42 193 5 Earthquake 6 50 100 21 177 4 Flood 20 25 75 49 169 3 Wildfire 16 25 50 49 140 2 Landslide 6 25 40 35 106 1 Step 3: Incorporate Criticality of Need, Large Number of Population Served, Likelihood of Success The final score for each action item was computed by summing the plan goal score and the hazard score. The Work Group then considered the criti- cality of need, the number of population served, and the likelihood of success. The HMWG is given an opportunity to add five points to the ac- tion item that has a high criticality of need, four points were given to the action item that has a high probability of success, and three points were given to an action item that serves a large number of the population. The Action. Item Prioritization Score is given in Appendix A. • 52 City of Tigard I Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Addendum GOAL 5.1 PROTECT PEOPLE AND PROPERTY FROM FLOOD, LANDSLIDE, EARTHQUAKE AND WILDFIRE HAZARDS. Policy 5.1.1 The City shall not allow development in areas having the following development limitations except where it can be shown that established and proven engineering techniques related to a specific site plan will make the area suitable for the proposed development: a. Areas having a severe soil erosion potential; b. Areas subject to slumping, earth slides, or movement; c. Areas having slopes in excess of 25 %; or d. Areas having severe weak foundation soils. Policy 5.1.2 The City shall coordinate land use and public facility planning with public safety providers (law enforcement, fire safety, and emergency service providers) to ensure their capability to respond to hazard events. Policy 5.1.3 The City shall design and construct public facilities to withstand hazardous events with a priority on hazard protection of public services and facilities that are needed to provide emergency response services. Policy 5.1.4 The City shall apply and enforce building code standards to protect the built environment from natural disasters and other hazards. Policy 5.1.5 The City shall promote the use of non - structural approaches to hazard mitigation. Policy 5.1.6 The City shall enforce standards requiring the cutting of tall grass and combustible debris removal. Policy 5.1.7 The City shall comply with The Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) flood regulations, which include standards for base flood levels, flood proofing, and minimum finished floor elevations. Policy 5.1.8 The City shall prohibit any land form alterations or developments in the 100 - year floodplain which would result in any rise in elevation of the 100 -year floodplain. Policy 5.1.9 The City shall protect natural drainageways and wetlands as valuable water retention areas and where possible find ways to restore these areas. Policy 5.1.10 The City shall comply with Metro Title 3 Functional Plan requirements for balanced fill and removal in the floodplain. Policy 5.1.11 The City shall work with Clean Water Services to preserve the natural storm water drainageways to reduce the potential for flooding. Policy 5.1.12 The City shall retain existing vegetation in areas with landslide potential to the greatest extent possible. Policy 5.1.13 The City shall minimize impervious surfaces to reduce storm water runoff. ACTION MEASURES 7 -1 Place land acquisition priorities on high hazard areas to be used for recreation or open space purposes. 7 -2 Update and maintain accurate information regarding natural hazard risks and past events. 7 -3 Address planning for the protection of public facilities and services from hazards in the Tigard Public Facilities Plan and Community Investment Plan. 7 -4 Retrofit existing facilities and services to contemporary standards to better withstand natural disasters and hazardous occurrences. 7 -5 Recognize that some existing buildings have not been built to contemporary building code standards and seek ways to encourage their retrofit to modem codes. 7 -6 Work with Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue Community Safety Program to provide information and education about urban interface wildfire to Tigard citizens. 7 -7 Complete and implement a natural hazards mitigation plan. GOAL: 5.2 PROTECT PEOPLE AND PROPERTY FROM NON - NATURAL HAZARDOUS OCCURRENCES. Policy 5.2.2 The City shall design, construct, and manage the surface transportation system to reduce the potential for mass casualty accidents and to provide the ability to evacuate when necessary. Policy 5.2.3 The City shall encourage communication and coordination among a wide variety of agencies to respond to human created disasters. t Map -5 / ti FEMA 100yr r -c. �� 7 Floodplain 'Ls-Th 1 j ' , and WI ., ,,� «59 1996 Flood — _ - ' _- •- _I/r'� Inundation > ,_.. .,....., Section 5 iimil I :::ra N. City of Tigard f / � ',51•11J ,k`, I Oregon g x i FEMA 100yr Floodplain ' c, i "� 1996 Flood Boundary • ` :: Major Road / , ` i ti ti Street �•, Stream F m. �� Water 1" 3 � `. Railroad City of Tigard 4 I i1 / ",..'C'' / } i I 0 RI A . 0 MI 0 3 OX OM MB ',.. 4 ; / n4e v . T U L I I N 7 -----\-7 ` 1 / _� a :14- F' II` ` i � Map -6 I 1‘ I p „ =� ' i � (� Landslide '' c . R l Hazards � �' � ` I �' , Y ~ � � �':` , co � ` �, J � Section 6 �\ , r , , r $ - f '..L�� Cit of Ti �L - ,, \ % % s ' Oregon , - N.,.. , ® i F Slope > 10% tr. f -'0” � • I s j Slope > 25% ^ + ` _ - \� �r f Mo derate Debris / a t , ^ ° ;. Flo Hazard �� A* ? ' «>� 9 k v+1 s ,t l '. Drainage Hazard v A e Area s', 4 � ' � t� Major Road T \�•� ti* Street Railr r!^ �° ' `� A - ,, - ~ Stream 7, 4 :1-..ti �' Water ,..„., t e " e � 1 1 oad ., Y ' !a , w . ..� City o Tigar €' '" a _ � ^The mf r m�h.m _,.., � „ , ✓ r � � 3 rli i �i I 0 1 � � �.., , � f,� � � I i �m " + � r . <� X i q ^ a` Wpb _ � � '� � s T :f4 i t . .4 �amo ' ^ 1 ' J.' '''' - . WiSco), 3- `f [ L A T T � . f 1 ,, ,, gir - II .6 - ` \lk Map-9 . a p Relative E 4. illiP arthquake dip , �,\ Hazard Sectio g �► �, City ofTi and + ti � � � j j Oregon � � ti I ' di Zone A: Greatest Hazard i Zone B I a Zone C —; 0 06 - ■ Zone D: Least Hazard Mir ( City of Tigard + # or; L—rj r j ® The Relative Earthquake Hazard data , - \ was defined by DOGAh9 using the relativ e emplrfieanon hazard. Mauve _ - liquefaetiun hazard, and relative slope /�/� �� hazmd. Fr more mfamation. please - ` ` � C.eobgy sad Minerahr�du�nea. of _ . ofMH t. MO Revinw nn to male es new arm, m emtlorm occur to Oar M content °Hite map E i l liP i ri T r ^ y T I . - -_. _ e�c�. TYrtac ow. rsetwer:t✓bnn.4an.• „e MEV OM MIN BM f Yell Oa VMS 90..,4171 1 -------' ap -8 l -_ _ �� ° �. Wildfire ti Fi -. ' :� Hazards zr -- - f Section 7 © N� - - - - `" / City of Tigard 4 Q` �f Oregon .-- Wildfire Hazard Zone (within one 't i mile of Tigard) �' '� - Major Road I � I I - Street v ,.' _ �. St _ N., ,r,ierjr= ..„ =.• ream st "T'� 411. A .++ _ i 116, Water go- J- w ( h G Railroad l 'i's \ „, `, $ • S� City of Tigard ...1 — - The IIE ard Zone definedI it- at ive fuel batt n t ative fuel d factor, actor and raphy or. es d efy - 0 For more ey Sue III j please contact Tustetcm Valley Fhe R J orN1s�630o1. Reui..im:mllMmtlevne.. decinme a emeMnmu a<,v is eNa Ne =mlml dlNe m.p. . 11 \ / ,•'' __ Ir IJ L 1 I t r r ' �� E \-) ap -7 • 4 M t ti Storm t� _� / Hazard N N j / Sanding — , rio illit / Priorities Section 8 : / City of Tigard Oregon ii jk \''' ,- I, t Priority 1 % I a Priori 2 ----0 �_ -.__.� — Priori 3 ______r________—/c/ ` r b a ' — Priority 4 \ Major Road r Street i Stream r` ea\ f Water r m„ Railroad a � . m City of Tigard J 0 :_- y f I l /1.4. •rlM mfMR 0.remmendwtdmmi.awmim 1 or m or te. occur t mtlewnhe tams declaims pneb�b may to Oar to emwia( the m. J I i C.. d ^ ncr, iir _ 1 l o.. ( ' Ty � %w..* J T t_+ A L :'■ T I N r n n.nn Ii I